Facts:

In the case of Lourdes R. BusiAos vs. Atty. Francisco Ricafort, the complainant, Lourdes R. BusiAos, filed a sworn complaint for disbarment against Atty. Francisco Ricafort on October 31, 1994, which was received by the Supreme Court on November 21, 1994. The complaint alleged that Ricafort committed the crime of estafa under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code by misappropriating a total of P32,000.00. This amount included P30,000.00 that was entrusted to him for deposit into the bank account of BusiAos's husband and P2,000.00 that Ricafort demanded from BusiAos for a bond in Civil Case No. 5814, which was never required.

Ricafort was the counsel for the defendants in Civil Case No. 1584, a case involving the properties of the late Pedro Rodrigo, the father of the complainant. On July 10, 1994, BusiAos executed a special power of attorney appointing Ricafort to represent her and her co-heirs in the case. The Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, issued an ...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Lourdes R. BusiAos filed a sworn complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort, a practicing lawyer in Oas, Albay, on 31 October 1994. The complaint alleged that Ricafort committed estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code by misappropriating P32,000.00.
• P30,000.00 was entrusted to Ricafort for deposit into the bank account of complainant’s husband, while P2,000.00 was allegedly demanded by Ricafort for a bond in Civil Case No. 5814, which was not required.

Respondent’s Failure to Comply with Court Orders

• The Supreme Court issued multiple resolutions requiring Ricafort to comment on the complaint. Despite receiving these resolutions, Ricafort failed to comply, leading to further sanctions, including a fine of P1,000.00 or imprisonment for 10 days.
• Ricafort eventually paid the fine but still failed to file his comment, prompting the Court to declare that he had waived his right to do so.

Evidence Presented

• Complainant Lourdes R. BusiAos testified that she authorized Ricafort to withdraw P35,000.00 (later clarified as P30,000.00 from the court and P5,000.00 from Oas Standard High School) for deposit into her savings account. Instead, Ricafort converted the money for his personal use.
• Ricafort also demanded and received P2,000.00 from the complainant for a bond that was never required. He later returned the P2,000.00 and paid a total of P60,000.00, including attorney’s fees, as a settlement.

Bar Confidant’s Report

• The Bar Confidant found Ricafort guilty of misappropriating P30,000.00 and deceiving the complainant into giving him P2,000.00. The report recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law.

---

Issue:

1. Whether Atty. Francisco Ricafort committed estafa by misappropriating funds entrusted to him by his client.
2. Whether Ricafort’s actions constituted deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
3. Whether Ricafort’s repeated failure to comply with court orders aggravated his liability.
4. Whether the penalty recommended by the Bar Confidant was commensurate with Ricafort’s infractions.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court emphasized the high standard of integrity and ethical behavior expected of lawyers. Ricafort’s actions, including misappropriation of client funds, deceit, and defiance of court orders, warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the legal profession’s integrity and public confidence.