G.R. No. L-21821-22 - Ty vs. Filipinas Compa

The administrative controversy arose from a disbarment suit filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, Department of Justice, against Atty. Leonuel N. Mas.
The charges against Atty. Mas include deceit, gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of both the lawyer’s oath and the oath of office as a prosecutor.
At the time of the incident, Atty. Mas was serving as an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for Laguna while on detail with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, thereby entrusted with handling preliminary investigations of cases.

The Complaint-Affidavit alleged that on March 23, 2009, between 5:00 and 10:00 PM, complainants Anabelle Sarte Gaaa, Lauro Sarte, and their aunt Elvira Shibuya lodged a complaint via text message regarding Atty. Mas’s conduct.
The complaint stemmed from an incident related to an estafa case (Lauro Sarte vs. Sylvia Dayrit et al.) where a preliminary investigation had been assigned to Atty. Mas.
It was alleged that Atty. Mas unlawfully demanded and received a sum amounting to PHP 58,000.00 by misrepresenting that an additional “docket fee” was necessary, despite a prior payment of PHP 6,000.00 being recorded.

On March 24, 2009, the complainants presented a handwritten Complaint-Affidavit detailing their grievances.
The affidavit revealed the following:

Personal details of the complainants (ages, marital status, and addresses) as well as their familial relation to Elvira Shibuya.
Lauro Sarte had been issued a subpoena by Atty. Mas, directing him to appear at the preliminary investigation on March 19, 2009.
During the appearance at the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, the complainants were questioned about earlier proceedings, the disposition of the money in the estafa case, and the delay in filing charges.
Atty. Mas provided various assurances including immediate resolution, issuance of a warrant of arrest, and resolution of the case within six months.

He inquired if the complainants could pay an additional “docket fee” allegedly amounting to PHP 150,000.00, later renegotiated over the phone to PHP 58,000.00.
He induced the complainants to return the following day with the cash, secured their compliance by having them take an “oath,” and then personally received the money.
He instructed the complainants not to speak to anyone at the office, citing that their opponent was “well connected.”
After receiving the cash, he escorted them out of the preliminary investigation room and ceased further communication, leaving them without an official receipt for the transaction.

Following the incident, the Provincial Prosecutor investigated the matter and found multiple administrative and criminal infractions, including:

Atty. Mas failed to respond to several court orders for comment and to explain his whereabouts, despite efforts by the Court and collaboration with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
On January 15, 2019, the IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a report recommending disbarment on the grounds that Atty. Mas committed the alleged misconduct, but noted that the penalty was moot since he was already disbarred in a prior case.
On November 28, 2020, the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty recommendation by adopting, in part, the Investigating Commissioner’s report with the condition that disbarment be imposed only if and when Atty. Mas’s previous disbarment were lifted.

The Court, after careful consideration and reference to precedents (such as Stemmerik v. Mas), upheld the findings of the IBP regarding Atty. Mas’s misconduct.
The Court ruled that despite the clear misconduct—involving deceit, extortion, and misuse of office—the imposition of a double disbarment is impermissible since Atty. Mas had already been disbarred previously.
The final directive required Atty. Mas to return the PHP 58,000.00 extorted from the complainants, with accruing legal interest, and mandated that the payment be evidenced within ten days.
The case was circulated to relevant offices for record-keeping and to serve as guidance for similar future cases.

Whether Atty. Mas properly received notice of the disbarment proceedings despite his evasive conduct and failure to update his contact details.

The issue of proper service of notice on an address listed in the IBP records was central, given his subsequent disappearance from those locations.

Whether Atty. Mas’s conduct—specifically his extortion of funds under the guise of collecting additional docket fees—constituted grave misconduct and a violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

The nature and elements of extortion, deceit, and gross misconduct as established by evidence were at the core of this inquiry.

Whether it is permissible to impose an additional disbarment penalty on Atty. Mas notwithstanding his previous disbarment for similar misconduct.

The legal principle against double disbarment under Philippine jurisprudence was critically examined in this context.