Case Digest (A.C. No. 11149)
Facts:
Laurence D. Punla and Marilyn Santos v. Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11149 (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3709), August 15, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainants Laurence D. Punla and Marilyn Santos engaged respondent Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona in January 2012: initially for notarization of a deed of sale and subsequently to represent them in two annulment cases. They allege respondent agreed to complete both cases within six months for a total fee of P350,000.00, which the complainants paid in full by installments on 27 and 28 January 2012, 14 March 2012, and 15 March 2012, evidenced by official receipts, a handwritten acknowledgement, and a bank deposit slip.
When the work was not done, complainants followed up about six months after the last payment. After respondent allegedly ignored their inquiries, they sent a demand letter dated 25 September 2012 asking for a full refund within five days; the PhilPost certified receipt on 1 October 2012 but no refund was made. A complaint-affidavit was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on 15 January 2013.
The IBP ordered respondent to file an answer on 25 January 2013; none was filed. A mandatory conference was set and reset (scheduled for 4 December 2013 and then 22 January 2014), but respondent failed to appear; the IBP terminated the mandatory conference and required verified position papers. Investigating Commissioner Ricardo M. Espina found respondent guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 (notably Rule 18.04) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommended disbarment, and ordered restitution of P350,000.00 with legal interest.
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XXI-2015-156 dated 20 February 2015, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommended disbarment. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court as an administrative case (A.C. No. 11149). The Court considered respondent’s record of prior administrative complaints — including a previously resolved disbarment/suspension matter in Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona (A.C. No. 11064) and other pending complaints — before issuing this En Banc decision on 15 August 2017.
Issues:
- Should respondent be disbarred for gross and continuing violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- If disbarment cannot be imposed anew because respondent was previously disbarred, what penalty is appropriate under the circumstances?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)