A.C. No. 10267 - Gradiola vs. Deles

Helen Gradiola filed a disbarment complaint against respondent lawyer Atty. Romulo A. Deles.
The complaint charged the respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically concerning:

Helen alleged that respondent lawyer acted as her counsel in a pending civil case before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 63354).
It was asserted that respondent lawyer delegated his professional duties to “Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta,” who was unqualified and had been disbarred.
Helen claimed that by doing so, the respondent aided in the unauthorized practice of law and engaged in an illicit fee-splitting arrangement with “Atty. Araneta.”

Helen maintained that she was assured of a favorable outcome due to alleged insider contacts in the CA in Cebu City.
She was shown documents—a photocopy of a November 13, 2006, CA Resolution and a “position paper”—that purportedly supported her case, only to later discover these were fabricated.
Despite these assurances, Helen later learned that the genuine CA resolution (a February 10, 2006 decision) denied her motions and rendered her case final and irrevocable.

Helen paid a total of P207,500.00 to “Atty. Araneta” for legal services, as indicated by receipts bearing his signature.
She later uncovered that “Atty. Araneta” had not only been disbarred but that the supposed favorable CA Resolution was a complete fabrication.
This discovery led Helen to file a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification of public documents against both respondent lawyer and “Atty. Araneta.”

Helen initiated a criminal case, which was found well-founded by the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City, and the case is pending before the RTC.
An administrative complaint for disbarment was likewise filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Respondent lawyer’s son, John P. Deles, informed the IBP that his father had suffered a stroke, underwent brain surgery, and was in a vegetative state, effectively incapacitating him from personally filing an answer.
Despite this, Atty. Carlito V. Mampang Jr. submitted an Answer on behalf of respondent lawyer, a document signed by John instead of the respondent, contending that his client was too incapacitated to communicate or defend himself.

The Investigating Commissioner, Oliver A. Cachapero, recommended a one-year suspension for respondent lawyer based on evidence that connected him to the fraudulent scheme.

The evidence included Helen’s affidavit, “Atty. Araneta’s” counter-affidavit mentioning an insider in Cebu City, and other documentary submissions.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's findings and recommendation in Resolution No. XX-2013-511.

Whether respondent lawyer’s delegation of legal tasks to “Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta” constituted a violation of the professional ethics rules on:

Unauthorized practice of law (Canon 9, Rules 9.01 and 9.02).
Misrepresentation and falsehoods before the court (Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02).

Whether the submission of an Answer by a proxy (signed by his son and executed by Atty. Mampang) compromised the respondent lawyer’s right to due process and an adequate defense.

Whether there was sufficient clear and convincing proof to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, notably suspension, given the medico-legal incapacity of the respondent to personally contest the allegations.

Whether administrative due process was observed through reliance on documentary evidence in substitution of live testimony, especially considering the respondent lawyer’s inability to communicate due to his medical condition.