Case Summary (G.R. No. 247645)
Background of the Complaint and Case Developments
GB Global engaged Atty. Buri to represent the company in the case Albert M. Lugtu v. GB Global Exprez, Inc. and Benson Chua before the labor arbiter. On January 3, 2018, Atty. Buri received ₱135,501.00 from GB Global intended to be posted as an appeal cash bond. Despite assurances that she was preparing the appeal pleadings, Atty. Buri failed to file the appeal within the reglementary period. This resulted in the labor arbiter’s decision becoming final and executory, as certified on February 9, 2018. Additionally, Atty. Buri failed to provide copies of pleadings, receipts for the cash bond, or return the amount upon demand. GB Global had to subsequently engage a new counsel to safeguard its interests. Moreover, Atty. Buri owed the company ₱625,000.00 as advances and fees from a separate case, which she also failed to return.
Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
The IBP initiated mandatory conferences starting in November 2019, requiring the parties’ attendance and submission of position papers. Complainant Dayos complied and appeared at conferences and submitted briefs, whereas Atty. Buri persistently failed to attend, comply with directives, or file position papers. The mandatory conferences were rescheduled multiple times amid the COVID-19 pandemic, including via video conferencing, but respondent remained non-compliant. On January 25, 2021, the mandatory conference was terminated, and parties were ordered to file verified position papers, with Dayos complying and Atty. Buri failing again. In May 2021, Dayos manifested that Atty. Buri had settled the monetary obligations previously owed, and GB Global no longer wished to pursue the case.
Investigating Commissioner’s Report and IBP Board Resolution
The Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. Buri, citing serious violations of the CPR, particularly Rule 16.01 (failure to account for money), Rule 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest conduct), Canon 17 (fidelity to client), and Rule 18.04 (failure to diligently serve the client). The recommendation took into account two prior administrative sanction cases against Atty. Buri: suspensions for violations involving unethical conduct, failure to return money, and disregard of IBP directives. The IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the recommendation, emphasizing the pattern of professional misconduct as an aggravating circumstance warranting disbarment.
Legal Standards on Membership in the Legal Profession
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, admission to and retention of membership in the Philippine Bar is a privilege conditioned upon good moral character, honesty, fidelity, and integrity. The Code of Professional Responsibility underscores these obligations through Canons 1, 16, 17, and 18, which mandate obedience to the law, trustworthiness with client funds, fidelity to client interests, and competent and diligent service. A lawyer’s conduct must be beyond reproach at all times to maintain public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Proceeding With Disbarment Despite Complainant's Desistance
The Court reaffirmed that disbarment proceedings are sui generis—neither purely civil nor criminal—but an inquiry into a lawyer’s fitness to continue practicing law. Such disciplinary actions may proceed despite the complainant’s withdrawal or desistance from prosecuting the case. The complainant in this case having manifested disinterest following full payment by Atty. Buri does not preclude the Court’s authority to impose discipline based on the evidence on record.
Violations Established Against Atty. Buri
Atty. Buri’s failure to file the appeal after receiving the cash bond amount and assuring the client of due diligence constitutes serious neglect in violation of Rule 18.03 and 18.04 (Canon 18) requiring competent and diligent service. Her failure to explain her non-compliance or to return the entrusted funds for three years constitutes a breach of Rule 16.01 (Canon 16), mandating strict accountability for client money. The unexplained retention and misappropriation of client funds reveal dishonesty and deceitful conduct proscribed by Rule 1.01 (Canon 1). These infractions strike at the core of the lawyer’s fiduciary duties, represent moral turpitude, and render her unfit to practice law.
Precedential Support and Policy Rationale for Disbarment
The Court cited prior rulings that emphasize the fiduciary
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247645)
Case Background and Origin
- The case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Maria Cristina G. Dayos, Corporate Secretary of GB Global Exprez, Inc. (GB Global), against Atty. Grace C. Buri.
- GB Global hired Atty. Buri to represent the company in NLRC Case No. RAB-III-02-25312-17, specifically to file an appeal in a labor case filed by Albert M. Lugtu.
- On January 3, 2018, Atty. Buri received ₱135,501.00 from GB Global as an appeal cash bond and verbally assured that she was preparing the appeal pleadings.
- Atty. Buri failed to file the appeal within the reglementary period, resulting in the labor arbiter's adverse decision becoming final and executory as of February 9, 2018.
- GB Global was forced to retain new counsel to protect its interests.
- Furthermore, Atty. Buri owed GB Global ₱625,000.00 in advances for retainer and appearance fees in a separate case, which she failed to return upon demand.
Proceedings Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
- The IBP initiated a Mandatory Conference on November 13, 2019, ordering the parties to appear and submit briefs prior to the conference.
- Only Dayos complied by attending and submitting her brief; Atty. Buri repeatedly ignored conference schedules and directives, including those for video conferencing amid the COVID-19 State of Public Health Emergency.
- The Investigating Commissioner terminated the mandatory conferences on January 25, 2021, ordering both parties to file verified position papers within ten days.
- Dayos complied on February 10, 2021, while Atty. Buri did not respond.
- On May 10, 2021, Dayos informed the IBP that Atty. Buri had repaid her full monetary obligation, including the appeal bond, and GB Global no longer wished to pursue the case.
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
- On November 8, 2021, the Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment of Atty. Buri, citing her violations in this and two previous administrative cases.
- Prior disciplinary cases against Atty. Buri:
- Yap v. Atty. Buri – Suspension for one year for violations of Rule 1.01 (Canon 1) and Rule 7.03 (Canon 7).
- Go v. Atty. Buri – Suspension for two years for violations of Rule 1.01 (Canon 1), Canon 15, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 (Canon 16), and Rule 18.03 (Canon 18).
- Violations in the present case included:
- Rule 16.01 (Canon 16) – Failure to account for client's money.
- Rule 1.01 (Canon 1), Canon 17, and Rule 18.04 (Canon 18) – Failure to pursue client's appeal and post the cash bond with entrusted funds.
- The commission noted these acts as disgraceful to the legal profession and incompatible with continued membership in the Bar.
Resolution by the IBP Board of Governors
- The IBP Board adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation via Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2022-03-31, dated March 18, 2022.
- The Board emphasized prior sanctions as aggravating circumstances, resolving to impose the extreme penalty of disbarment on Atty. Buri.
Legal Principles on Bar Membership and Conduct
- Bar membership is a privilege conferred by law subject to conditions including essential qualifications such as honesty, fidelity, and integrity.
- These traits are prerequisites not only for admission b