Case Summary (A.C. No. 6368)
Key Individuals and Context
Complainants: Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco
Respondent: Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo
Colluder: Andres Magat
Subject Property: Land belonging to the Miranda family in Tagaytay City
Key Dates
• April 15 – July 22, 1997: Alleged period of fraudulent solicitation and misappropriation of ₱495,000.00.
• Dec. 7, 1998: MCTC Resolutions finding probable cause for Estafa.
• June 22, 1999: Provincial Prosecutor’s Resolution affirming probable cause.
• July 8, 1999: Filing of Estafa Information before RTC, San Fernando, Pampanga.
• April 16, 2004: Administrative complaint for disbarment filed with the Supreme Court.
• Feb. 1, 2007: IBP Board of Governors Resolution ordering restitution of ₱200,000.00 or one-year suspension.
• June 21, 2008: Manifestation of RTC conviction for conspiracy to commit Estafa.
• June 13, 2012: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (bar discipline post-1990).
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 315(2)(a) (Estafa).
• Rules of Court, Rule 138 §27 (grounds for suspension/disbarment) and Rule 139-B §6 (verification of comment).
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 2.03 and 3.01.
Facts and Proceedings
Atty. Bernardo, in concert with Andres Magat, offered to expedite titling of the Bengcos’ land by misrepresenting his connections (e.g., NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO, Register of Deeds) and status as counsel to a prospective buyer. The Bengcos delivered ₱495,000.00 between April and July 1997. Thereafter, Bernardo misappropriated the funds, refused restitution, and ignored demands. Preliminary investigations by the MCTC of Sto. Tomas and Minalin and the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga found probable cause to charge him and Magat with Estafa.
Respondent’s Defense
Bernardo denied personal receipt of funds, contending Magat handled payments and that no collusion occurred. He asserted his right to render legal services and invoked prescription under the two-year period for disciplinary complaints. He sought multiple extensions to file a verified comment and failed to appear at the IBP mandatory conference.
IBP Findings and Recommendation
The IBP Investigating Commissioner concluded that Bernardo willfully used deceitful pretenses to induce payment, misappropriated the amount, and ignored demands for return. His default and disregard for IBP processes demonstrated contempt for court authority. Citing his criminal misconduct—later leading to conviction for Estafa—and violations of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board, modifying this recommendation, ordered restitution of ₱200,000.00 within 60 days or suspension for one year.
Issues
- Does the respondent’s conduct constitute deceit, malpractice and breach of the attorney’s oath sufficient for disciplinary sanction?
- Is the defense of prescription applicable to a lawyer-disciplinary proceeding?
- What penalty is appropriate under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Court?
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court ruled th
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6368)
Background of the Complaint
- Complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a lawyer, and violation of his duties and oath.
- Alleged misconduct arose between April 15, 1997 and July 22, 1997 in connection with the titling of land belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City.
- Complainants advanced ₱495,000.00 to Atty. Bernardo to “expedite” the titling, relying on his false representations.
Acts Constituting the Complaint
- Represented jointly with Andres Magat that they had influence at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO, and the Register of Deeds to fast-track land titling.
- Falsely claimed Atty. Bernardo was legal counsel to William Gatchalian (owner of Plastic City) and that Gatchalian would purchase the titled property.
- Received ₱495,000.00 from the complainants; misappropriated, misapplied, and converted the funds for personal use.
- Refused to return the money despite repeated demands, thereby committing estafa and breaching professional duties.
Criminal Proceedings and Preliminary Investigation
- Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Pampanga, issued a Resolution (Dec. 7, 1998) finding probable cause to charge Atty. Bernardo and Magat with Estafa under Article 315(2)(a), RPC.
- Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga, issued a similar Resolution (June 22, 1999) after re-investigation; Magat offered to reimburse ₱200,000.00 but implicated Bernardo for the balance.
- Information for Estafa filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, San Fernando, Pampanga on July 8, 1999.
Respondent’s Comment and Contentions
- Filed an undated Comment denying deceit: claimed Magat alone received the ₱495,000.00 and solicited his legal services.
- Denied any collusion or misrepresentation; maintained he merely provided legal services upon Magat’s request.
- Asserts acceptance of payment for legal services is lawful and routine in legal practice.
IBP Proceedings and Default Finding
- Case referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation under Rule 139-B, Sec. 6, Rules of Court.
- Respondent’s initial Comment deemed unverified; two extension motions filed (Mar. 2005, Apr. 2005) citing medical confinement.
- Failed to appear at the mandatory