Case Digest (A.C. No. 10253)
Facts:
Rafael Padilla v. Atty. Glenn Samson, A.C. No. 10253, August 22, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Rafael Padilla engaged Atty. Glenn Samson as his counsel in Case No. 00-05-07038-08 (Indelecia Balaga and Enrique Balaga v. Rafael Padilla). Padilla alleges that Samson abruptly ceased communicating with him, nearly causing Padilla to miss a pleading deadline, and that Samson refused to return case documents and an overpayment of P19,074.00 despite repeated demands and a formal demand letter.
Padilla filed an administrative complaint on November 25, 2013 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended on January 26, 2016 that Samson be suspended for six (6) months. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XXII-2016-176 (February 25, 2016), adopted the recommendation with modification and increased the penalty to one (1) year suspension.
Samson also failed to file an answer to Padilla’s complaint and refused to respond to directives from the Court and the IBP to explain or refute the allegations. The matter thereafter...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Atty. Glenn Samson administratively liable for abandoning his client, failing to return client funds and documents, and refusing to comply with IBP and Court directives?
- If liable, what disciplinary sanction should be imposed?
- May the Court, in disciplinary proceedings, order the return of the client’s money and d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)