Case Digest (G.R. No. 165483)
Facts:
Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz, Rodolf John G. Dela Cruz, and Rodolf James Dela Cruz v. Atty. Glen Eric Peralta, A.C. No. 13475 [Formerly CBD 16-5224], October 04, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainants (the Dela Cruz family) were judgment creditors of Lito Gitalan, Jr., after a trial court found him guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and ordered payment of P213,750.00; the judgment became final and executory on June 28, 2011. In execution proceedings, complainants moved to have the monetary award collected and enforced.
At the October 10, 2014 hearing on the motion for execution, respondent Atty. Glen Eric Peralta tendered P100,000.00 cash plus a P30,000.00 cash bond and promised to pay the remaining P83,750.00 within a month; complainants accepted these terms subject to a motion in case of default. Thereafter, respondent purportedly approached the presiding judge and presented an acknowledgment receipt, asserting full satisfaction of the monetary award.
Complainants denied receipt of full payment and denied signing the acknowledgment receipt. The trial court subpoenaed Gitalan, who testified that on June 20, 2012 he gave respondent a manager’s check payable to Rodolf James Dela Cruz as payment of the judgment, and that respondent gave him an acknowledgment receipt which was notarized by respondent and bore the purported signature of Judy Gabawan Dela Cruz. Respondent denied receiving any check, denied notarizing or issuing the receipt, and claimed he was out of town; his secretary, Era S. Vidal, later executed an affidavit acknowledging she received and encashed the check and issued the receipt.
Complainant-lawyers filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent on December 5, 2016, alleging deceit, forgery and misappropriation of client funds, among other violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Respondent tendered the remainder of the award on January 22, 2015 and advanced defenses including alleged coercion and extortion demands by complainants.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the evidence sufficient to prove violations of the CPR and recommended suspension for three years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of guilt but increased the penalty to disbarment in an Extended Resolution, citing respondent’s keeping of proceeds, forgery of the payee’s signature, abuse of his notar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- If guilty, whether the penalty of disbarment is a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)