Case Digest (A.C. No. 11795)
Facts:
Gilda J. Rosca v. Atty. Michael John C. Delmendo, 949 Phil. 576; A.C. No. 11795, November 21, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainant Gilda J. Rosca filed a Complaint‑Affidavit against respondent Atty. Michael John C. Delmendo accusing him of falsification, soliciting money as a bribe in relation to the reconstitution of a title, and other dishonest conduct while serving at the Land Registration Authority (LRA). In October 2015, Atty. Delmendo asked brokers Joycelyn Pameron and Evelyn Salor to find someone who could extend a loan using a parcel (TCT No. T‑240036 in the name of Jufraida C. Jamero) that he said was the subject of a pending reconstitution. He allegedly presented photocopies of an LRA Report and an Order, represented the reconstitution was imminent, and purportedly introduced himself as Head of the Legal Affairs Department of the LRA.
Relying on these assurances, Gilda agreed to finance the reconstitution. She and the parties executed a “Warranty and Undertaking on the Loan Obtained from Gilda J Rosca” signed by Ramon Ledonio as borrower and Atty. Delmendo as guarantor; Gilda issued a PHP 3,000,000.00 check (No. 0007151465) which Atty. Delmendo cashed, and subsequently handed him additional cash amounting to PHP 4,800,000.00. Atty. Delmendo allegedly promised to return funds if the reconstituted title was not released within 30 working days and to secure a real estate mortgage upon release as loan collateral.
When the title was not delivered within the agreed period, Gilda sought the documents and was furnished photocopies of an unsigned Order and a Report dated October 13, 2015, said to be signed by Administrator Eulalio C. Diaz. Verification efforts at the LRA revealed that the Report and Order were spurious and not in the case records; Joycelyn also reported that the tax declaration in Jufraida’s name did not exist. Text messages between Gilda and Atty. Delmendo (and other corroborating testimonies) showed repeated assurances and demands for more money, and later evasiveness on Delmendo’s part. Aggrieved, Gilda filed administrative, criminal, and disciplinary complaints: disbarment proceedings before the Supreme Court, complaints under Section 7(d) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), and criminal complaints for estafa through falsification.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City recommended filing an Information for Estafa through Falsification (May 4, 2017). On February 20, 2018, the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Atty. Delmendo for violations including Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Section 7(d) of RA 6713, and ultimately, the Ombudsman’s disposition found him guilty of violation of Section 7(d) of RA 6713 and grave misconduct, ordering his dismissal from the service (March 2018). A letter from the LRA’s Inspection and Investigating Division later confirmed the reconstitution was assigned to Atty. Delmendo but that no issuances relating to the reconstitution were located in the case record.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) investigated and, in its Report and Recommendation, urged disbarment for soliciting bribe money and fabricating documents; the IBP Board of Governors adopted that reco...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) apply to this disciplinary proceeding?
- Did respondent Atty. Delmendo commit falsification, bribery (soliciting money in connection with LRA proceedings), and other misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction?
- If misconduct is established, is disba...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)