A.C. No. 5808 - Espiritu vs. Ulep

Oscar M. Espiritu, the complainant, sought assistance through a letter addressed to the president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija Chapter, to secure a meeting with Atty. Jaime C. Ulep, the respondent.
The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to deliver funds entrusted to him:

P50,000 given for the settlement of Civil Case No. 1028 (filed in the Municipal Trial Court [MTC] of Rizal, Nueva Ecija) for the benefit of respondent’s client, Mr. Ricardo Maon.
P30,000 plus interest and expenses as the balance for a deed of absolute sale brokered and notarized by respondent.

On April 5, 1999, the IBP-CBD, through Commissioner J.V. Bautista, invited respondent to a meeting at IBP Cabanatuan seeking an amicable settlement of the impending complaint.
Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled meeting, prompting the IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter to formally endorse the verified letter-complaint to the IBP-CBD on April 19, 1999.
An order dated May 28, 1999, directed respondent to file his answer to the complaint pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court, which he did by submitting an affidavit that was identical to his previously filed counter-affidavit in a related estafa case.

The allegations of estafa were unfounded and that the controversy was instead a matter of specific performance.
He explained that during the preparation of a deed of sale for an agricultural land, a discrepancy regarding the owner’s copy of the Title emerged.
He admitted to holding P50,000 in trust for Mr. Espiritu, to be released upon receipt of the owner’s copy, and noted instances where his office received additional money from Mr. Espiritu’s niece.
The counter-affidavit stipulated that he was obligated to return P25,000 upon presentation of the genuine owner’s copy of the Title.

The document was originally submitted for a preliminary investigation regarding the alleged estafa.

Subsequent to the counter-affidavit, respondent requested a formal hearing and a venue change, but these requests were met with various reschedulings and denials.
Despite being duly notified, respondent repeatedly failed to appear on several scheduled hearing dates (August 13, 1999; October 29, 1999; November 19, 1999; and January 21, 2000).
In each instance, respondent filed last-minute requests for cancellations citing prior engagements or personal reasons (e.g., undergoing “eye treatment” or conflicting court appearances).

The complainant submitted evidence ex-parte during the hearing held on January 21, 2000, including:

Exhibit “A”: A verified letter-request dated March 15, 1999.
Exhibit “B”: A certification by Atty. Jaime C. Ulep acknowledging receipt of P50,000 as settlement of Civil Case No. 1028.
Exhibit “C”: A promissory note issued on December 22, 1997, for the amount of P30,000.
Exhibit “D”: A deed of absolute sale executed on December 22, 1997.
Exhibit “E”: A letter from Ricardo Maon dated March 9, 1999 indicating non-receipt of the P50,000 settlement money.
Exhibit “F”: A decision of the MTC of Rizal, Nueva Ecija in Civil Case No. 1028 incorporating the compromise agreement.

On December 29, 2000, Investigating Commissioner J.V. Bautista submitted his report finding respondent guilty of misappropriating client funds in violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The recommended penalty was a six-month suspension from the practice of law.
On June 29, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the report, ordering:

Immediate restitution of P50,000 (with legal interest from December 22, 1997) to the client, Ricardo Maon.
A six-month suspension from the practice of law for respondent.
The dismissal of the P30,000 claim due to insufficient evidence.

Whether Atty. Jaime C. Ulep misappropriated funds held in trust for his client, Ricardo Maon, by failing to deliver P50,000 as required.

Assessment of the allegation in light of the evidence showing acknowledgment of receipt of funds (Exhibit “B”) and subsequent non-delivery (Exhibits “E” and “F”).

Whether respondent’s repeated failure to appear in scheduled hearings and his submission of a counter-affidavit (previously filed in a criminal case) adversely affected his chance to present a viable defense.

The impropriety of relying on an unrelated affidavit to answer the administrative complaint concerning misappropriation.

Whether the evidence supports the complainant’s other claim for P30,000 alleged to have been promised by respondent.

Determination if sufficient proof exists to justify this additional monetary claim.