Case Summary (A.C. No. 7676)
Summary of the Facts
The complainant engaged Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates in February 2005. In January 2007 respondent allegedly received P800,000 from complainant’s sibling Aurora Dizon (documented as P300,000 on January 15 and P500,000 on January 18, 2007), and in February 2007 allegedly demanded an additional P75,000 from the complainant to expedite proceedings before the Court. Complainant discovered on October 24, 2007 that the petition had already been denied on November 20, 2006, contrary to respondent’s representations that the matter was pending. Attempts to contact respondent thereafter were unsuccessful.
Documentary and Affidavit Evidence Submitted
Handwritten receipts signed by “Atty. Norlita De Taza” were produced: a January 15, 2007 receipt for P300,000 stating the amount would be used to expedite the case and that a favorable decision would follow within two months or the P300,000 would be returned if back rentals were not included; a January 18, 2007 receipt for P500,000 described as an advance to expedite the process and to be reimbursed by siblings if the case was finally won. The complaint included multiple affidavits from creditors attesting that respondent issued dishonored checks (totaling amounts alleged in the affidavits) and failed to pay debts, and a notation of a complaint for drawing checks against a closed account (estafa/ B.P. No. 22 matter before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Angeles City).
Procedural History and Attempts to Procure Respondent’s Defense
The complainant filed the administrative complaint for disbarment on November 6, 2007. The Court required respondent to file a comment by Resolution dated December 10, 2007, but service attempts were repeatedly returned (notations: “RTS-Moved,” “RTS-not connected,” and “RTS-Unclaimed”). The Court deemed the December 10, 2007 Resolution served and considered the respondent to have waived filing a comment. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation; mandatory conference notices were not complied with; the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a two-year suspension (Report dated January 4, 2011). The IBP Board of Governors modified that recommendation in a January 3, 2013 resolution to suspend respondent for one year. The Court reviewed the matter and rendered the present decision.
Issue Presented
Whether Atty. Norlita De Taza should be administratively disciplined for (1) issuing dishonored checks and incurring unpaid debts, and (2) demanding and/or receiving money from her clients under the guise of expediting proceedings before the Court.
Standard of Proof and Nature of Disciplinary Proceedings
The Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, investigatory in character, primarily concerned with the public interest and the fitness of a lawyer to continue to enjoy the privileges of the profession. There is no plaintiff or prosecutor in the conventional sense; the proceeding may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. The applicable standard is substantial evidence—an amount of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
Court’s Findings on the Evidence and Credibility
The Court found that respondent failed to answer the complaint despite multiple avenues of service and that all practicable attempts to afford her an opportunity to be heard were exhausted. On the merits, the Court accepted the documentary receipts and creditor affidavits as showing a pattern of borrowing, issuance of dishonored checks, and unpaid debts. The Court also accepted the receipts and the complainant’s showing that respondent demanded money specifically to “expedite” a case that had already been dismissed months earlier—thereby representing that the case was pending to induce payment. The Court treated respondent’s use of the Court’s name and representations regarding imminent favorable action as baseless and intended to defraud clients.
Legal Analysis: Duty to Account and Applicable Grounds for Discipline
The Court emphasized the lawyer’s duty to account for client funds and to use such funds only for the intended purpose; if funds are not used as intended, they must be returned. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer’s oath, and related infractions. The respondent’s conduct—demanding and receiving money for a non-existent or already-dismissed benefit, issuing dishonored checks, and leaving debts unpaid—implicates deceit, lack of personal honesty, and conduct that renders a lawyer unworthy of public confidence. The Court referenced controlling precedents (as set out in the record) where issuance of dishonored checks and fraudulent demands for money to secure judicial action led to suspension (and in some instances longer suspensions) to illustrate the consistency of the sanction applied.
Court’s Conclusion and Disciplinary Ruling
W
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7676)
Procedural Posture and Case Title
- Full case caption as provided: 736 Phil. 60 EN BANC [ A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014 ] AMADO T. DIZON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NORLITA DE TAZA, RESPONDENT.
- Nature of proceeding: Administrative complaint for disbarment filed with the Supreme Court alleging professional misconduct by respondent Atty. Norlita De Taza.
- Lower action and investigatory referrals: After service issues and deemed waiver of comment, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation; the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline made a recommendation which was later modified by the IBP Board of Governors; the Supreme Court ultimately resolved the matter by decision dated June 10, 2014.
Parties
- Complainant: Amado Dizon.
- Respondent: Atty. Norlita De Taza.
- Additional actors: Siblings of the complainant (one named Aurora Dizon), other creditors and affiants (e.g., Ana Lynda Pineda, Darwin Tiamzon, Eleanor Sarmiento), the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Commission on Bar Discipline and Board of Governors), and the Office of the City Prosecutor in Angeles City (reference to a criminal case file I.S. 07-J-2815-36).
Factual Background
- Engagement of counsel:
- Sometime in February 2005, Amado Dizon and his siblings engaged the services of the law office Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates to represent them in the case of Eliza T. Castaneda, et al. v. Heirs of Spouses Martin and Lucia Dizon (G.R. No. 174552). [2]
- Alleged improper demands and payments:
- Complainant alleges that in February 2007 Atty. De Taza demanded P75,000 from him to “expedite the proceedings” before the Court, an amount over and above the parties’ stipulated retainer fee as evidenced by a contract. [3]
- Complainant further alleges that in January 2007, Atty. De Taza had demanded and received P800,000 in total from his sibling Aurora Dizon for the same purported purpose of expediting the proceedings. This earlier demand was unknown to the complainant at the time he was solicited for P75,000.
- Documentary evidence of receipts:
- Handwritten receipts signed by “Atty. Norlita De Taza” were submitted:
- 15 Jan. 2007 receipt for P300,000 stating the amount would be used to expedite the case and purporting to guarantee: (1) a decision favorable to plaintiff within two months of receipt; and (2) return of back rentals if not included in the decision; signed Atty. Norlita De Taza. [5]
- 18 Jan. 2007 receipt for P500,000 stating the amount was advanced as part of expense to expedite the process before the courts, that it was advanced by Ms. Aurora Dizon and should be reimbursed to her by her siblings upon winning the case with finality; signed Atty. Norlita De Taza. [6]
- Handwritten receipts signed by “Atty. Norlita De Taza” were submitted:
- Discovery that case had been denied and respondent’s absence:
- On October 24, 2007, complainant learned at the Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila, that the petition had already been denied on November 20, 2006 — contrary to Atty. De Taza’s representations that the case was still pending. The complainant attempted to contact Atty. De Taza but she could no longer be found. [7]
Collateral Allegations and Supporting Affidavits
- Affidavits and documents attached to the complaint indicated a pattern of indebtedness and dishonored checks:
- Ana Lynda Pineda’s affidavit alleged issuance by Atty. De Taza of eleven checks totaling ?481,400.00, all dishonored and followed by unheeded demand letters. [10][11]
- Darwin Tiamzon’s affidavit averred Atty. De Taza issued a check for P50,000 as payment for a loan which was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. [12][13]
- Eleanor Sarmiento’s affidavit stated a debt of P29,560.39 owed by Atty. De Taza and unpaid despite repeated demands. [14]
- Reference to a criminal/estafa and BP No. 22 case:
- Complainant submitted a document evidencing Atty. De Taza’s involvement in an estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa No. 22 case filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Angeles City (I.S. 07-J-2815-36) for drawing checks against a closed account. [Source text]
Complaint, Service Attempts, and Waiver
- Filing of complaint:
- Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment on November 6, 2007, attaching affidavits and documentary evidence. [8][9]
- Notice of respondent’s planned departure:
- On November 14, 2007, complainant informed the Court that Atty. De Taza was planning to leave the country to join her husband in the United States of America. [15]
- Court’s attempts to secure respondent’s comment and service difficulties:
- Resolution dated December 10, 2007 required Atty. De Taza to file a Comment; the copy was returned unserved with postal notation “RTS (Return to Sender) - Moved.” [16]
- Resolution dated July 2, 2008 sent a copy to Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates office; returned unserved with notation “RTS - not connected.” [17]
- Resolution dated October 8, 2008 required the complainant to inform the Court of Atty. De Taza’s new address; complainant supplied a U.S.A. address. [18]
- Resolution dated January 26, 2009 directed the Clerk to resend the December 10, 2007 resolution and complaint to the U.S.A. address; the mailing was returned with postal notation “RTS - Unclaimed.” [19]
- Resolution dated September 9, 2009 held that the copy was deemed served and considered Atty. De Taza as having waived the filing of her comment. [20]
- Resulting procedural posture:
- After deeming service effected and comment waived, the case proceeded to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. A Notice of Mandatory Conference was sent but the parties failed to appear; they were directed to file position papers. The complainant later informed the IBP that he was residing abroad and that he had previously submitted documentary evidence; respondent filed no position paper. [21][22]
IBP Proceedings and Recommendations
- IBP Commission on Bar Discipline:
- The Commission, in its Report and Recommendation dated January 4, 2011, recommended suspension of Atty. De Taza for two years from the practice of law. [23]
- IBP Board of Governors action:
- The IBP Board of Governors modified the Commission’s recommendation in a Resolution dated January 3, 2013: it adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report “with modification,” and, specifically finding respondent’s demand of P800,000 to expedite a case that had long been dismissed, resolved that Atty. Norlita De Taza be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. [24][25]
- The IBP Board’s modification thus recommended one year suspension (explicit in the quoted resolution language). [24]
Issues Presented
- Stated issue: WHETHER ATTY. DE TAZA SHOULD BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR ISSUING BOUNCING CHECKS, DEMANDING AND/OR RECEIVING MONEY FROM HER CLIENTS UNDER THE GUISE OF HAVING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EXPEDITED.
- Subsidiary factual and legal questions embedded in the record:
- Whether respondent’s conduct (demanding and receiving money to “expedite” proceedings that were already dismissed) amounts to deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or other grounds warranting disciplinary sanction.
- Whether the additional evidence of dishonored checks, unpaid debts and a related estafa/ BP No. 22 case support a finding of unfitness to practice law.
- Whether respondent’s failure to file a comment, despite repeated attempts to serve, permits resolution on the basis of the complainant’s evidence.