A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070 - Apiag vs. Cantero

In 2011, complainant Eduardo B. Manalang retained Atty. Cristina B. Buendia for the declaration of nullity of his marriage, with an agreed total legal fee of ₱275,000 plus documentation and out-of-pocket expenses.
Manalang paid an acceptance fee in two tranches (₱10,000 and ₱15,000), a partial payment of ₱120,000 for proceedings, and later ₱30,000 representing additional legal fees.

Atty. Buendia represented in 2011–2012 that she could expedite the nullity proceeding to six months–one year, assuring Manalang of legality and progress. When Manalang expressed willingness to accept the normal longer process, she insisted on further payment for haste.
From June to September 2012, Buendia failed to respond to calls or office visits. On September 7, 2012, she revealed that Atty. Neil Salazar in Cagayan was handling the case, promising a decision by November 6, 2012, but provided no updates.
On April 15, 2013, Buendia sent a message that the annulment was “finally resolved” and on April 28, 2013, reluctantly furnished Manalang with a purported December 28, 2011 RTC-Ballesteros decision and a February 17, 2012 Certificate of Finality.
Buendia then demanded an additional ₱50,000 for registration with the National Statistics Office, which Manalang paid on May 10, 2013, bringing total payments to ₱225,000.

Upon inspection, Manalang found the decision’s facts fabricated and inconsistent with his account; he made over 50 calls, 40 texts, and multiple visits to Buendia’s office from May 2013 to January 2014 without response.
In Cagayan, Manalang learned no annulment case had been filed. His further attempts to contact Buendia failed.
On June 27, 2014, Manalang lodged a disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending disbarment for gross misconduct and failure to file the annulment despite receipt of ₱270,000.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation, citing the production of a spurious decision and certificate of finality.
The Supreme Court, exercising its disciplinary power under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, resolved the case.

Did Atty. Buendia engage in deceitful, dishonest or grossly negligent conduct by misrepresenting case status, fabricating court documents, and failing to file the annulment petition despite receipt of client funds?
Does such conduct warrant the penalty of disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court and Canon 1, Rules 1.01–1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?