Case Summary (A.C. No. 12876)
Background of the Case
In April 2014, Dillon engaged Atty. De Quiroz to handle a criminal case, providing an initial payment and additional fees. Dillon alleges that Atty. De Quiroz failed to communicate effectively regarding the case status, did not issue receipts for payments, and even falsified Dillon's Judicial Affidavit, subsequently leading to the dismissal of Dillon's case against Mapili.
Respondent’s Defense
Atty. De Quiroz refuted Dillon's claims, asserting that he did not neglect his duties nor did he commit any procedural failures. He mentioned that Dillon was the fourth lawyer handling the case and argued that he consistently communicated with Dillon about the case status, including sending reminders for scheduled hearings.
Events Leading to Disbarment Complaint
Dillon expressed dissatisfaction after losing the case, claiming that Atty. De Quiroz failed him and threatening to file complaints against him. The interactions between the complainant and the respondent intensified, with accusations of blackmail when Dillon demanded refunds and immediate action to appeal the dismissal of his case.
Proceedings Before the IBP
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) reviewed submissions from both parties. An Investigating Commissioner found Atty. De Quiroz administratively liable for signing Dillon's Judicial Affidavit without the appropriate authority and recommended a penalty of three months suspension from the practice of law.
Resolution by the IBP Board of Governors
The IBP Board of Governors modified the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation, reducing the suspension to one month due to the absence of bad faith and considering it as a first offense. Atty. De Quiroz appealed this decision, arguing he had authority from Dillon through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to sign the Judicial Affidavit.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Court reviewed the case, emphasizing that the burden of proof in administrative proceedings requires substantial evidence. It found that Dillon’s allegations lacked sufficient proof, and it noted the complainant's ongoing dissatisfaction with multiple attorneys involved in his case. The Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12876)
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around a complaint for disbarment filed by Lance Peter Dillon against Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz.
- The complaint alleges violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- Dillon engaged Atty. De Quiroz in April 2014 for representation in Criminal Case No. 469594-CR involving falsification of a public document against Anna Maria Mapili.
- Dillon made initial and additional payments for legal services but claimed no receipts were issued for the money received.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Dillon asserts that Atty. De Quiroz exhibited gross incompetence and extreme negligence in managing his criminal case.
- Specific allegations include:
- Failure to communicate the status of the case.
- Lack of response to Dillon's emails.
- Absence during a court hearing on November 6, 2014.
- Falsification of Dillon's Judicial Affidavit (JA) submitted in the case.
Respondent's Defense
- Atty. De Quiroz denied all allegations, asserting he acted with honesty and integrity.
- He claimed to have fully informed Dillon about the legal procedures and status of the case.
- Atty. De Quiroz stated that he was the fourth lawyer to handle Dillon's case, indicating prior disruptions in legal representation.
- He maintained that he met Dillon in May 2014 and