G.R. No. 146717 - Transfield Philippines, Inc. vs. Luzon Hydro Corp.

On February 26, 2010, complainant Myrna Ojales purchased a parcel of land in Palinpinon, Valencia, Negros Occidental, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale prepared by respondent Atty. Obdulio Guy Villahermosa III.
Respondent volunteered to process the issuance of the title in complainant’s name and assured that the title would be released within two to three months.

On March 2, 2010, complainant remitted a total of ₱21,280.00 to respondent, which was documented by two separate receipts:

These transactions established an attorney–client relationship, imposing upon respondent a duty of fidelity and dedicated service to the legal matter entrusted to him.

After five months, complainant visited the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to verify whether the capital gains tax had been paid.
The BIR informed her that no document concerning her transaction had been submitted.
Complainant returned to respondent’s residence where he reassured her that the title would be processed by September 4, 2010.
Upon following up after the promised date, the BIR again reported the absence of any filed document; respondent failed to present a claim slip from the BIR as evidence of compliance.

Dissatisfied with the non-performance and after being scolded by respondent’s wife when she requested a refund, complainant filed an administrative Complaint on July 15, 2011, with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
On July 18, 2011, an Order directing respondent to answer the Complaint was issued, which was later acknowledged to have been received on August 3, 2011.
Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Complaint.
A Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing scheduled for December 1, 2011 was sent, but respondent failed to attend, leading to his declaration of default by Commission Order on December 1, 2011.
On June 1, 2012, Investigating Commissioner Loreto C. Ata submitted a comprehensive Report and Recommendation based on the evidence, highlighting respondent’s negligence and failure to process the legal matter or return the funds.

On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and imposed a six-month suspension on respondent.
A letter dated October 7, 2013, confirmed the transmittal of the case documents to the Supreme Court with no motion for reconsideration by either party.

Whether respondent, by failing to process the issuance of the title and the payment of the capital gains tax as promised, neglected his duty as a lawyer.
Whether the delay and non-action in processing the legal matter entrusted to him constituted negligence or misappropriation of client funds.

Whether respondent’s failure to file an Answer to the Complaint and his non-attendance at the mandatory hearing revealed a disrespect for the IBP’s authority and procedural rules.
Whether such failures sufficiently justify punitive measures under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether respondent’s actions violated Canon 16 (duties concerning client funds and trust), Canon 18 (competence and diligence in service), and Rule 18.03 (obligation not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him).
Whether precedent cases such as Barnachea v. Atty. Quiocho support the imposition of sanctions for failure to return client funds and to properly perform entrusted legal responsibilities.