Case Digest (A.C. No. 10662)
Facts:
Jun B. Luna v. Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita, A.C. No. 10662 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2654], July 07, 2015, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Jun B. Luna engaged Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita to prosecute a foreclosure complaint filed October 14, 2002 in the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon, against Jose Calvario for nonpayment of a P100,000 loan secured by a real estate mortgage. The parties participated in pretrial/mandatory conferences and Luna presented evidence; thereafter, counsel submitted a written Compromise Agreement (Kasunduan) to the trial court on February 14, 2006, which the trial court approved in a February 20, 2006 decision providing that Calvario would pay P105,000 and Luna would cause removal of the encumbrance annotation on title.
Luna alleged he was not informed of the compromise, and that Atty. Galarrita received P100,000 of the settlement proceeds but failed and refused to remit them. Luna's administrative complaint (Affidavit-Complaint) was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on April 7, 2010; attached exhibits included a Counsel’s Report dated August 12, 2003 in which Atty. Galarrita discussed settlement prospects and stated he would waive compensation for his services in the case.
Atty. Galarrita answered, asserting he had a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that authorized entry into amicable settlements, that he regularly reported case developments, and that Luna “slept on his rights.” He also invoked a retaining lien for unpaid retainer fees under their General Retainership Agreement and raised prescription under the IBP disciplinary rules. The IBP Investigating Commissioner (Oliver A. Cachapero) issued a December 4, 2010 Report recommending a one-year suspension for violation of Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XX-2013-441 (April 15, 2013), adopted the Report with modification and recommended suspension for six months and ordered return of P100,000 to Luna, and it denied reconsideration in Resolution No. XXI-2014-270 (...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Galarrita commit disciplinary misconduct warranting administrative sanction for entering into a compromise without his client’s consent?
- Was respondent obliged to remit the P100,000 settlement proceeds to complainant Luna, or could he validly retain the funds under an attorney’s retaining lien?
- If liable, what sanction and anc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)