A.C. No. 11078 - Mercullo vs. Ramon

The case involves complainants Verlita Mercullo and Raymond Vedano, who sought to redeem their mother's property, which was subject to foreclosure due to unpaid obligations secured by a mortgage in Novaliches, Caloocan City.
The property was mortgaged with the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC), which had issued several demand letters regarding the arrears.
To avoid foreclosure, the complainants were designated to inquire about the status of the mortgage and became aware that the arrears amounted to P350,000.00.
The respondent, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, was identified as being in charge of the matter, although she was reportedly not present at the time of the initial inquiry.

On June 20, 2012, Carmelita—the mother of the complainants—received a notice from the RTC sheriff regarding the impending auction of the property.
On August 30, 2013, following a visit to the NHMFC, the complainants met with the respondent who provided details on their right to redeem the property within one year from foreclosure.
During the meeting, the respondent:

Arrived carrying the folder previously seen at the NHMFC, thereby creating an impression of legitimacy.
Oriented the complainants on the procedure for redemption.
Received P350,000.00 from them, evidenced by two acknowledgment receipts (one for the redemption price and another for litigation expenses).
Presented her NHMFC identification card as validation.
Promised to inform them once the documents for redemption were ready for their mother’s signature.

On September 4, 2013, the respondent delivered a signed letter and the special power of attorney (SPA) document, purportedly to assist in redeeming the property.
By September 9, 2013, the complainants discovered that the respondent was no longer connected with the NHMFC.
A follow-up meeting on September 20, 2013, at the RTC in Makati City resulted in the respondent assuring that the redemption was underway, with a certificate expected within two to three weeks.
On November 27, 2013, upon inquiring with the RTC Clerk in Caloocan City, the complainants learned that the respondent had not deposited the redemption price nor filed the letter of intent for redemption.
On December 5, 2013, the complainants issued a demand letter to the respondent, who acknowledged it and promised to return the amount by depositing the funds in Verlita’s bank account on December 16, 2013.
The respondent, however, failed to appear in subsequent hearings, and her attempts to reach her proved futile.

Due to her non-response and absence during a mandatory conference convened by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the investigation proceeded ex parte.
IBP Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano, after reviewing the evidence, found that Atty. Ramon had violated Rule 1.01 (Canon 1) of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in deceitful conduct, and recommended a two-year suspension along with an order to return the sum of P350,000.00 with legal interest.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation through Resolution No. XXI-2014-929.

Whether Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by accepting P350,000.00 from the complainants under the pretext of redeeming their mother’s property.
Whether her failure to promptly inform the complainants of her disconnection with the NHMFC and the non-initiation of the redemption process constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 (Canon 1) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether her actions breached the fiduciary duties imposed by the Lawyer's Oath and the ethical standards expected of a lawyer.
Whether the disciplinary penalty recommended by the IBP (a two-year suspension and refund of P350,000.00 plus interest) was adequate in view of the gravity of the misconduct.
Whether a more severe disciplinary sanction was warranted given the cumulative acts of deception, neglect, and non-compliance with required IBP proceedings.