Case Digest (A.C. No. 5054, 6484)
Facts:
Soledad Nunez, represented by Anamias B. Co, Attorney‑in‑Fact, Complainant, v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort, Respondent (A.C. No. 5054) and Adelita B. Llunar v. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort (A.C. No. 6484), March 02, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Romulo L. Ricafort (petitioner) is a lawyer who was the subject of three separate administrative disciplinary proceedings decided against him: A.C. No. 5054 (Nunez v. Ricafort, indefinitely suspended, May 29, 2002), A.C. No. 8253 (Tarog v. Ricafort, disbarred, March 15, 2011), and A.C. No. 6484 (Llunar v. Ricafort, disbarred, June 16, 2015). The three cases arose from separate client engagements: in 1982 he failed to remit sale proceeds (A.C. No. 5054); in 1992 he deposited client funds into his personal account and failed to perform and return funds (A.C. No. 8253); and from 2000–2003 he accepted redemption/filing fees but did not file the agreed action, concealed his suspension and continued to practice (A.C. No. 6484). The Court ordered restitution in each case and imposed the penalties noted above.
On March 21, 2019, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion (and a Supplemental Petition dated April 5, 2019) seeking reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. The petitions identified all three disciplinary docket numbers in their captions. Because the petitions were separately docketed, they were assigned to different Members of the Court and came up on the En Banc agenda of June 4, 2019, resulting in conflicting initial actions: in A.C. No. 5054 the Court noted the petitions and referred them to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation; in A.C. No. 6484 the Court noted them; whereas in A.C. No. 8253 the Court denied the same petitions and later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The OBC, by report dated August 8, 2019, recommended consolidation of the three matters for uniform disposition, that the petitions docketed under A.C. Nos. 5054 and 6484 be deemed moot if A.C. No. 8253 was to be maintained as denied, and that the motion for reconsideration be denied. The Court consolidated A.C. Nos. 5054 and 6484 by Resolution of August 28, 2019, and denied reconsideration in A.C. No. 8253 in a June 23, 2020 Resolution. The Court then proceeded to evaluate the clemency petitions under revised guidelines developed in light of recent jurisprudence (notably Re: Diaz and Re: Ong) and the OBC’s role in fact‑finding.
After preliminary evaluation, the Court examined the content and character of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Do the petitions for judicial clemency filed by petitioner show prima facie merit such that they should be referred for fact‑finding under the Court’s revised clemency guidelines?
- Substantive: Should judicial clemency and reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys be granted to petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)