Case Digest (A.C. No. 5067)
Facts:
Corazon M. Dalupan v. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, A.C. No. 5067, June 29, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review under Rule 139‑B, Section 12(c) of the Rules of Court of IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XVII‑2007‑115 (March 17, 2007) and Resolution No. XIX‑2010‑544 (October 8, 2010), which adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated December 12, 2006 and ordered respondent to return P5,000 to complainant.The complainant, Corazon M. Dalupan, alleged she and her son were defendants in criminal cases in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Puerto Princesa and engaged Atty. Glenn C. Gacott to represent them for an acceptance fee of P10,000 (P5,000 per defendant), paying P5,000 on August 20, 1996 and allegedly a further P5,000 on January 31, 1997; she also claimed to have paid P500 as an appearance fee. She complained that respondent refused to draft a Motion to Reduce Bail, neglected hearings, and that the trial judge later appointed counsel de oficio for her.
Respondent denied negligence, asserted the complainant represented herself as indigent for multiple cases, and said he agreed to represent several matters at P5,000 per case plus P500 per appearance. He produced a Motion for Reduction of Bail filed August 27, 1996 and explained his nonappearance at a September 1997 hearing by a process‑server failure. The complainant terminated his services on October 10, 1997 and withdrew her files on October 30, 1997; the MTC issued an order on January 29, 1998 relieving respondent of responsibility in the criminal cases.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Investigating Commissioner Reyes recommended dismissal of the disbarment complaint but advised that respondent return P5,000 because he found no substantial legal work...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the respondent should return the payment of the attorney’s fee (acceptance fee) of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) to the complain...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)