Case Summary (A.C. No. 2387)
Allegations and Initial Complaint
On April 15, 1982, Cleto Docena filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Limon, citing malpractice, gross misconduct, and violations of the attorney’s oath. The case revolved around the respondent's handling of a supersedeas bond amounting to P10,000.00, which Docena was required to secure in order to stay the execution of the appealed decision.
Financial Transactions and Responsibilities
To procure the required bond, Docena obtained multiple loans: P3,000.00 from the Development Bank of the Philippines, P2,140.00 from a private source, and applied for an agricultural loan for P4,860.00 from the Philippine National Bank, with Atty. Limon acting as the guarantor. Correspondence from Limon further reiterated the urgency for Docena to deposit the P4,860.00 on time.
Discovery of Misconduct
On November 14, 1980, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the Docena spouses, leading them to seek the return of their supersedeas bond. However, upon inquiry, Docena discovered that Atty. Limon had never actually posted the bond. Despite promises to return the money, Limon failed to comply with his commitments even after repeated demands from Docena.
Respondent's Defense and Admissions
In his defense, Atty. Limon claimed that the P10,000.00 constituted his attorney's fees; however, this assertion was contradicted by his own prior demand for the balance of P4,860.00, indicating that the bond money was entrusted to him for deposit and not his personal fee. His promise to return the bond further implied that he had misappropriated the funds.
Recommendations from the Integrated Bar
Following an investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law for respondent Limon and mandated the return of P8,500.00 to Docena. The court, however, criticized this recommendation as insufficient given the gravity of Limon's misconduct.
Grounds for Disbarment
The Court underscored that Atty. Limon's actions constituted clear violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 2387)
Case Background
- The case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Cleto Docena against Atty. Dominador Q. Limon, Sr. on April 15, 1982.
- The grounds for disbarment include malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the attorney's oath.
- Atty. Limon represented the Docena spouses in an appeal concerning Civil Case No. 425 for Forcible Entry before the then Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, Branch I.
Allegations and Events Leading to the Complaint
- During the appeal, Atty. Limon required the Docena spouses to post a supersedeas bond amounting to P10,000.00 in order to stay the execution of the appealed decision.
- To meet this requirement, Cleto Docena took out multiple loans:
- P3,000.00 from the Development Bank of the Philippines,
- P2,140.00 from a private individual,
- P4,860.00 from the Philippine National Bank, with Atty. Limon acting as guarantor.
- Atty. Limon sent a letter on September 2, 1979, reminding the Docena spouses about the deposit of the balance of P4,860.00, indicating the urgency of the matter.
Court Decision and Discovery of Malpractice
- On November 14, 1980, the Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar ruled in favor of the Docena