Case Summary (A.C. No. 12768)
Background Facts and Initial Engagement
In 2015, Bondoc sought legal assistance for an annulment case, for which she was introduced to Licudine. They agreed on representation, and the complainant deposited CAD$2,000.00 into respondent’s bank account as an initial fee. Despite payment, Licudine failed to file any annulment petition, nor did he provide updates. Complaints also arose from alleged disclosure of complainant’s personal information by the lawyer. Consequently, Bondoc terminated Licudine's services and demanded an accounting and refund of paid fees, initially verbally and later through formal Demand Letters, which were duly received by Licudine.
Communication and Subsequent Demands
Between February and October 2016, complainant and her authorized representative, her son Conrad H. Bautista, persistently requested the return of legal fees. Licudine acknowledged receipt of demands and at times promised partial refunds, yet he failed to comply. Special Authorization documents enabling Conrad to transact with Licudine were submitted, duly sworn before the Philippine Consulate. Licudine’s excuses ranged from internal procedural delays and waiting for remittances to questioning the authorization’s validity. Despite repeated follow-ups and a scheduled conference with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission), Licudine remained non-compliant and absent from required proceedings.
Respondent's Defense
Licudine admitted receiving the fees and acknowledged some communication with the complainant and her representative. He claimed the payment was for an annulment via the Vicariate of Baguio City, and that he expended the money preparing the petition. He also denied wrongdoing concerning the breach of confidentiality and suggested that some delay was due to an unexpected natural disaster (Typhoon Lawin). Licudine expressed willingness to reimburse the fees only after the administrative complaint was filed, attributing prior delays to inadvertence.
Findings on Professional Misconduct
The Commission found that Licudine violated the Lawyer’s Oath and pertinent Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, failure to perform the agreed legal service, in conjunction with the refusal to return or account for the legal fees, constituted grave misconduct and deceitful conduct forbidden under Rules 1.01, 16.01–16.03, and Canons 1 and 16 of the Code. His unauthorized disclosure of the client’s personal information further violated professional ethics. Licudine’s repeated failure to comply with IBP orders and failure to appear at mandatory conferences further demonstrated disrespect for regulatory authority.
Legal Obligations of Lawyers Regarding Client Funds
Under Canon 16 and related rules of the Code, a lawyer must hold client funds in trust, keep them separate from personal funds, account for all money received, and promptly deliver funds upon demand, less lawful fees. Failure to return unearned fees raises a presumption of misappropriation, damaging public confidence in the profession. Licudine’s conduct—non-performance of legal services and failure to refund fees despite multiple demands—was a clear breach of these duties, reflecting bad faith and unprofessionalism.
Penalty and Court’s Ruling
The Court, applying the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Code of Professional Responsibility, found Licudine guilty of professional misconduct. Considering precedents where lawyers who failed to render services and return client fees were suspended for two
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12768)
Background and Nature of the Complaint
- This case involves a complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Marlow L. Licudine for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
- Complainant Felicitas H. Bondoc, a resident of Alberta, Canada, engaged respondent to file a civil annulment case against her husband in the Philippines.
- On October 1, 2015, complainant and respondent agreed on a legal engagement for the annulment case.
- On October 2, 2015, complainant’s representative deposited CAD$2,000.00 to respondent’s bank account as an initial down payment for legal fees.
- Despite payment, respondent failed to file any pleadings or update complainant on the status of the case.
- Complainant also discovered that respondent had divulged her personal information without authorization, leading to the termination of respondent’s engagement.
Timeline and Attempts to Recover Legal Fees
- From February 28 to March 8, 2016, complainant was physically in the Philippines and spoke with respondent.
- Respondent admitted to having spent the paid fees but verbally promised to return half by the last week of March 2016 without explaining fund utilization.
- On March 7, 2016, complainant sent a Demand Letter for accounting and refund within 30 days; respondent received this.
- After no response, a Second and Final Demand Letter was sent, also received by respondent, but ignored.
- Complainant’s son, Conrad H. Bautista, sent follow-up text messages starting July 2016 requesting refund deposit to his bank account.
- Respondent demanded an authorization from complainant before transacting with Conrad.
- On July 18, 2016, Conrad sent a duly authorized Special Authorization signed by complainant and sworn before the Philippine Consulate General.
- Respondent acknowledged receipt but delayed refund, promising readiness by August 15, 2016, which was unmet.
- Respondent claimed his office was completing the refund by late August; several follow-up messages from August to October 2016 were met with excuses of pending collections and remittances.
- Respondent promised to return fees by the last week of October 2016 but failed to do so and later ceased communication.
Respondent’s Defense and Admissions
- Respondent claimed complainant initially sought a church-based annulment, which he researched due to unfamiliarity.
- Respondent received the P60,000.00 (CAD$2,000.00) acceptance fee and complainant’s legal documents through Deslauriers, her live-in partner.
- Respondent denied divulging complainant’s personal information but acknowledged a communication rift after the allegation.
- He asserted that the acceptance fee was used to prepare the annulment petition.
- Respondent confirmed complainant terminated services and requested refund, but he refused, citing expenses incurred.
- He expressed initial hesitation in dealing with Conrad due to questions about his identity but admitted to promising to return half of the fees by October’s end.
- Typhoon Lawin’s