Case Digest (A.C. No. 8776)
Facts:
Antonina S. Sosa v. Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza, A.C. No. 8776, March 23, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The complaint for disciplinary action was filed on October 22, 2010 by Antonina S. Sosa (complainant) against Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza (respondent) for alleged violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from non‑payment of a loan.On July 28, 2006, Ms. Sosa alleged she loaned P500,000.00 to Atty. Mendoza with an agreed P25,000.00 interest and a 10% per month penalty for default; Mendoza signed a promissory note and issued a postdated check for P500,000.00. He failed to pay on the due date; Ms. Sosa deferred depositing the check at Mendoza’s request, but when she finally deposited it in October 2006 the check was dishonored for insufficient funds. After unsuccessful collection attempts, Ms. Sosa engaged Atty. Ernesto V. Cabrera, who sent a demand letter on January 11, 2010; Mendoza received but ignored it.
This Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation on April 18, 2012. The IBP Investigating Commissioner conducted a mandatory conference/hearing (August 16, 2012); Mendoza appeared late, admitted the existence and validity of the obligation, and allegedly stated he had P600,000.00 on hand but nonetheless did not pay. Mendoza later filed a Brief Comment (January 10, 2012) in which he admitted the loan’s validity but claimed, without supporting affidavits or proof, that he only received P100,000.00 from a third party.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Mendoza administratively and civilly liable; the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated May 11, 2013, adopted the report with modification and resolved to suspend Mendoza from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Mendoza commit gross misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- May the Court, in disciplinary proceedings, order the respondent to return the loaned money and awa...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)