A.C. No. 12876 - Dillon vs. De Quiroz

A Complaint for Disbarment was filed by Peter Lance Dillon (Complainant) against Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz (Respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
The complaint alleged that Atty. De Quiroz violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by committing several lapses in representing the complainant in a criminal case.

In April 2014, the complainant engaged the respondent to represent him in Criminal Case No. 469594-CR for Falsification of a Public Document filed against Anna Maria Mapili at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila.
The complainant paid an initial payment and additional fees for court appearances; however, he alleged that:

The respondent failed to issue receipts for the monies received.
There were repeated failures in communication regarding the status of the case.
The respondent did not answer emails and failed to attend a scheduled court hearing on November 6, 2014.

Moreover, the complainant asserted that the respondent falsified the Judicial Affidavit (JA) by signing on his behalf without proper authority.

On May 6, 2014, the respondent, accompanied by his fiancée Ms. Debbie Saturno, met the complainant at Horizon Plaza Hotel in Madaluyong City, introduced by Ms. Haidelisa Husmillo, Director of First Magellan Overseas Corporation.
The parties entered into a Contract of Legal Services and the complainant signed an Entry of Appearance, with an acceptance fee of P40,000.00 being received (receipt duly handed to Ms. Husmillo).

The respondent attended the scheduled hearing on May 8, 2014 when Judge Yolanda M. Leonardo ordered the referral of the case to the Philippine Mediation Center and set a pre-trial/preliminary conference for July 24, 2014.
An email dated June 11, 2014 was sent by the respondent informing the complainant of the pre-trial date.
The complainant, however, repeatedly failed to attend subsequent hearings, including a Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) initially set for August 5, 2014 and later reset to August 26, 2014.

On November 6, 2014, the respondent did not personally appear at a scheduled hearing due to illness but sent his secretary to inform the court.
Due to the need to submit the JA, events unfolded as follows:

On November 8, 2014, discussions regarding the contents of the JA began between the parties.
On November 24, 2014, with the complainant unavailable for signature, the respondent signed the JA on behalf of his client and subsequently emailed a copy of the JA to the complainant.

The complainant expressed his dissatisfaction via email on December 16, 2014, effectively terminating the respondent’s services.
Following further correspondence, on January 15, 2015, the complainant requested that the respondent file his formal withdrawal, which was later effected on February 5, 2015, with confirmation in a court Order dated February 16, 2015.

On September 28, 2015, the complainant sent an email threatening disbarment and other retaliatory actions, including filing a complaint against Judge Leonardo and the Fiscal.
The IBP-CBD process continued with:

The filing of the respondent’s Pre-Trial Brief on June 28, 2016.
A Mandatory Conference held on July 1, 2016, which only the respondent attended.
Submission of respective position papers and supporting documents by both parties between August and December 2016.

On January 30, 2017, the IBP-CBD issued its Report and Recommendation finding the respondent administratively liable for signing the JA without the requisite authority, recommending a penalty of suspension for three months.
This recommendation was modified on November 29, 2017, by the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) to a one-month suspension noting no bad faith and the respondent’s first offense.
The respondent’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied on June 18, 2019, and on March 12, 2020, the IBP-CBD transmitted all records to the Court for appropriate action.

Whether Atty. De Quiroz should be held administratively liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility for allegedly signing the Judicial Affidavit on behalf of the complainant without having the requisite authority.

Whether the alleged lapses in communication and failure to ticket appropriate receipts and attend hearings constitute sufficient evidence of gross incompetence and extreme negligence.
The implications of the complainant’s conduct, including his email threats which suggested extortion and blackmail, on the overall merits of the complaint.