Sison, Jr. vs. Camacho

Facts:

In a verified affidavit-complaint dated September 17, 2012, filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD), complainant Atty. Antero M. Sison, Jr. (president of Marsman‑Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings, Inc. (MDAHI)) accused respondent Atty. Manuel N. Camacho of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) — specifically Rule 1.01 (dishonest conduct) for entering into a compromise without written authority, and Rule 16.01 (failure to account) for mishandling funds purportedly advanced as additional docket fees.

The factual core arose from Civil Case No. 05‑655 before the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 139, an insurance claim by MDAHI against Paramount Life & General Insurance Corp. The original claim and computations led to an asserted increase of the claim to P64,412,534.18, which Atty. Camacho said required additional docket fees of P1,288,260.00. MDAHI, through its corporate secretary Atty. Enrique Dimaano, delivered that sum to Atty. Camacho on May 27, 2011; Atty. Camacho did not issue a receipt, and on May 26, 2011 the RTC had already rendered judgment awarding MDAHI approximately P65,000,000.00.

On August 11, 2011, Atty. Camacho wrote recommending settlement with Paramount for P15,000,000.00; MDAHI refused and did not sign any conforme. Nevertheless, Atty. Camacho filed a Satisfaction of Judgment dated August 15, 2011 asserting a compromise agreement. When confronted, he claimed he gave the P1,288,260.00 to the clerk of court because the payment period had lapsed. MDAHI later filed a criminal estafa complaint (Crim. Case No. 13‑1688) against Atty. Camacho concerning the P1,288,260.00.

Atty. Camacho contended before the IBP that he had authority to compromise, and that the P1,288,260.00 formed part of his attorney’s fees; he filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Pay Attorney’s Fee (Sept. 13, 2011) which the RTC granted (Order of April 12, 2012), and a July 6, 2012 RTC order resolved motions for reconsideration favorably for him, with the court finding only P300,000.00 previously paid and treating the balance as unpaid attorney’s fees.

The IBP‑CBD Investigating Commissioner recommended one (1) year suspension (Report and Recommendation, Apr. 1, 2013), which the Board of Governors adopted. After motion for reconsideration, the Board partially g...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was it premature for the IBP Board to dismiss the charge of failure to account (Rule 16.01) because of a pending criminal case?
• Did Atty. Camacho violate Rule 1.01 of the CPR by entering into a compromise agreement without his client’s written authority?
• Did Atty. Camacho violate Rule 16.01 of the CPR by failing to account for or return the P1,288,260.00 given for additional docket fees?
• What is the appropriate disc...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)