Title
PSP Development Corp. vs. Arma
Case
A.C. No. 12220
Decision Date
Nov 13, 2018
Atty. Luisito C. Arma was accused of failing to file a case despite receiving payment, but the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing due process and burden of proof.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 12220)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties Involved
    • Complainant: PSP Development Corporation, a domestic corporation represented by its President, Reynaldo Jesus B. Pasco, Sr.
    • Respondent: Atty. Luisito C. Arma, engaged as legal counsel.
  • Engagement and Transaction
    • In August 2004, PSP Development Corporation engaged respondent for legal services to file a case against a certain Pio Castillo, Jr. and Macatan Apparel, Inc.
    • Respondent accepted the engagement and billed the complainant professional fees amounting to P65,000.00.
  • Allegations and Complaint
    • Complainant alleges that, despite the payment and its repeated follow-ups, respondent failed and refused to file the necessary court case, resulting in prejudice against the corporation.
    • On September 7, 2005, a final demand was issued by the complainant asking respondent to return the money received, to no avail.
  • IBP Investigation and Preliminary Proceedings
    • The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner prepared a Report and Recommendation dated April 1, 2016, recommending the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for five (5) years.
    • The report noted that respondent failed to file his answer to the complaint, with a notice returned as “moved with no forwarding address.”
    • The Investigating Commissioner remarked that complainant did not actively follow up on the status of the case, and no further pleadings or evidence (such as an ex parte submission or mandatory conference proceedings) were presented.
  • IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
    • On August 31, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors modified the initial recommendation, reducing the suspension period from five (5) years to two (2) years in Resolution No. XXIII-2017-021.
    • The disciplinary action was based solely on the allegation contained in the Complaint, without additional evidence or procedural developments.

Issues:

  • Central Issue
    • Whether Atty. Luisito C. Arma committed misconduct warranting his suspension from the practice of law.
  • Subsidiary Issues
    • Whether the allegations against the respondent were supported by sufficient and substantial evidence.
    • Whether the due process requirements in administrative proceedings were observed, including giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard despite his default.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.