Title
Dizon vs. De Taza
Case
A.C. No. 7676
Decision Date
Jun 10, 2014
Atty. De Taza demanded exorbitant fees, issued bouncing checks, and misrepresented case status, leading to a two-year suspension for violating ethical obligations and defrauding clients.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7676)

Factual Background

In February 2005, Amado Dizon and his siblings hired Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates for legal representation. By February 2007, Atty. De Taza demanded an additional Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000) from Dizon to expedite court proceedings, which was beyond a previously agreed retainer fee. The complainant later discovered that his sibling, Aurora Dizon, had already given Atty. De Taza a total of Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000) for the same purpose of expediting their case, with receipts indicating the intentions of speedy resolution promised by Atty. De Taza.

Discovery of Fact and Allegations

On October 24, 2007, Dizon learned from the Court that the petition had already been denied in November 2006, contrary to Atty. De Taza's assurances that the case was still active. Subsequent attempts to contact her failed, leading Dizon to file a complaint for disbarment on November 6, 2007. The complaint included multiple affidavits from other individuals attesting to Atty. De Taza's issuance of bounced checks and her failure to repay debts, presenting a pattern of financial misconduct.

Court Procedure and Investigations

The Court issued several resolutions directing Atty. De Taza to respond to the allegations. However, all attempts at serving her were unsuccessful as the postal carriers indicated she had either moved or was not connected at her office address. Resolutions were eventually sent to her new address in the U.S.A, but these too were returned unclaimed. Consequently, the Court ruled that she had waived her right to comment on the charges.

IBP Investigation Findings

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) handled the investigation and, despite Atty. De Taza's absence from the proceedings, recommended her suspension for two years based on the evidence submitted by the complainant. This recommendation was modified by the IBP Board of Governors to a one-year suspension, citing Atty. De Taza's solicitation of funds for expedited legal services that were already denied – an act deemed inappropriate and unethical.

Legal Ruling and Reasoning

In deliberating on Atty. De Taza's administrative liability, the Court found her failure to refute the allegations significant, as multiple opportunities to defend herself were met with silence. Citing a lack of personal honesty and good moral character, the Court emphasized that the issuance of bouncing checks and the fraudulent solicitation of funds underm

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.