Case Digest (A.C. No. 11350)
Facts:
Adegoke R. Plumptre v. Atty. Socrates R. Rivera, A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The case is a disbarment proceeding transmitted under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court following action by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).Complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre filed a disbarment complaint with the IBP on May 13, 2014, alleging that respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera misappropriated money entrusted for immigration assistance and solicited money to bribe a judge. Plumptre alleged that he paid Rivera P10,000 as professional fee on a first meeting; gave another P10,000 together with his passport for processing a work permit on a second meeting; and, on a later occasion, refused an additional P10,000 demand. Rivera allegedly then solicited an extra P8,000 for a separate motion for reconsideration — P5,000 to be given to a Las Piñas judge and P3,000 to process the motion — bringing the total endorsed amount to P28,000. After receipt of the funds, Rivera reportedly ceased meaningful communication, hurled threats at complainant and his wife, and initially failed to return the passport and money; the passport was later returned through the complainant’s aunt, but the P28,000 was not.
The IBP directed Rivera to file an answer (Order dated May 14, 2014). Rivera failed to file an answer and did not appear at mandatory conferences set for September 17, 2014 and October 22, 2014. The parties were ordered to submit verified position papers and the matter was submitted for resolution. On May 27, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension and restitution of P28,000. On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report but modified the recommended penalty to disbarment and an order to return P28,000. The IBP transmitted the case to the Supreme Court on April 20, 2016 for final action.
The Supreme Court noted Rivera’s noncompliance with IBP directives and tre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was service and notice of the disbarment proceedings to respondent sufficient?
- Did respondent’s conduct — withholding client funds, threatening the client, and soliciting money to influence a judge — constitute professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action?
- If misconduct is established, what is the appropriate...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)