G.R. No. 205743 - Turla vs. Heirs of Dayrit

In January 2004, Lazareto and his family engaged respondent Atty. Dennis N. Acorda to handle the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Lazareto’s deceased father.
The engagement included the filing of extrajudicial settlement papers by a set deadline (May 26, 2004) to secure a tax deduction benefit, as well as the transfer of titles for two parcels of conjugal land (Lots B and E) to the mother, Cleotilde D. Lazareto.
Lazareto delivered the original duplicate copies of TCT No. 206006 (Lot B) and TCT No. 206008 (Lot E) along with an acceptance fee and an initial deposit totaling P120,000.00 for legal services and associated expenses.

After the initial engagement, the respondent became unresponsive until he communicated via fax demanding an additional P88,000.00, which Lazareto paid in two installments (P66,000.00 and P20,000.00).
May 2004 elapsed without the required filing of the extrajudicial settlement papers. Although subsequent follow-ups (including telephone calls and letters) were made, the respondent continued to be inaccessible in terms of executing his duty to process the legal documents.
A liaison officer, Manny Pacheco, was sent by the respondent on at least one occasion to collect funds, suggesting an indirect approach to managing the family’s funds.

On August 24, 2004, the family received a liquidation report from the respondent. Later, additional funds were provided by Lazareto for property taxes, issuance of new titles, and additional transfer expenses (amounting to P150,000.00, P15,000.00, and P10,330.00 respectively).
Despite these injections of funds, progress remained unsatisfactory. Lazareto repeatedly called for updates and eventually wrote demand letters for the return of the title to Lot E.
The respondent eventually admitted to losing TCT No. 206008 (covering Lot E) and provided an unsigned affidavit of loss—a gesture that exacerbated Lazareto’s frustration with the respondent’s apparent negligence and nonchalance.

Respondent’s lawyer, Atty. Rufino I. Policarpio, III, subsequently proposed an amicable settlement whereby part of the funds would be returned and the necessary documents (including an extrajudicial settlement with deed of sale and receipts) would be provided.
Lazareto accepted the proposal and even submitted a manifestation to the IBP Investigating Commissioner. However, the respondent failed to comply with his commitments, leading to increased dismay and the eventual filing of the disbarment complaint.
In the course of settling the extrajudicial matter on his own, the Lazareto family discovered that:

No extrajudicial settlement or affidavit of publication was filed with the Manila Register of Deeds.
Only a Deed of Absolute Sale for Lot B (with dubious execution dates and signatures) and a questionable publication in a tabloid (a detached, separate page from Balitang Detalye) were on record.
The publications and documents appeared falsified, thereby indicating misrepresentation by the respondent.

The case was initially investigated by Commissioner Gerely Rico of the IBP, and later by Commissioner Angelito C. Inocencio, who assumed the investigation.
Comm. Inocencio’s report centered on two critical issues: respondent’s negligence in handling the legal matter (a breach of Rule 18.03) and whether his actions amounted to bad faith in dealing with the Lazareto family.
While Inocencio found the respondent negligent in his performance, he did not conclude that the dealings were attended by bad faith; nevertheless, he recommended severe censuring for the apparent professional misconduct.

Whether respondent Atty. Dennis N. Acorda was negligent in handling the extrajudicial settlement and associated legal tasks as entrusted by Lazareto and his family.
Whether his failure to file the necessary documents by the agreed deadline and subsequent non-performance despite receiving substantial funds was sufficient to constitute a breach of his professional obligation.

Whether the respondent committed acts of dishonesty by producing and presenting a fake deed of sale and a bogus publication of the extrajudicial settlement.
The relevance of such misrepresentations to the overall charge of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 regarding dishonesty and deceitful conduct.

Whether Lazareto’s executed affidavit of desistance should bar further proceedings against the respondent notwithstanding the grave allegations of professional misconduct.
How the filing of the affidavit interacted with the public interest and the integrity obligations of a lawyer.

Whether the IBP Board’s initial disciplinary action (a one-month suspension) and its subsequent reconsideration (resulting in dismissal of the case) adequately addressed the gravity of the respondent’s negligence and misrepresentations.
Whether the Board of Governors misappreciated the extent and impact of the respondent’s breach of his contractual and ethical duties.