Case Summary (A.C. No. 12296)
Facts of the Case
The complaint arose from a verified submission dated December 15, 2015, filed by Pia Marie B. Go against Atty. Grace C. Buri for alleged unprofessional conduct. The complainant engaged the respondent's legal services to annul her marriage in September 2012, for which she initially paid P150,000.00 as a package engagement fee on January 17, 2013. Following the initiation of the annulment petition, Go did not receive any updates despite her requests. In February 2013, she asked Buri to pause the case due to personal issues, and the respondent purportedly withdrew the petition. After deciding to proceed with the annulment in February 2015, Go faced difficulties in contacting Buri. Ultimately, Go discovered through the Office of the Clerk of Court that no annulment petition had been filed, prompting her to demand the return of her money from Buri, who only promised to return half but failed to do so.
Proceedings Before the IBP-CBD
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) held a Mandatory Conference, but only the complainant complied with the directives. As a result, the IBP-CBD deemed respondent’s absence and noncompliance as a waiver of her right to participate in the proceedings.
Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendations
In a Report and Recommendation issued on January 30, 2017, the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Buri administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension from practicing law. The findings highlighted Buri's failure to file the annulment petition, misappropriation of fees, and a pattern of misrepresentation, constituting violations of Canon 18 of the CPR.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
In a subsequent Resolution dated November 29, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors increased the suspension period to two years, mandated the return of the full amount of P188,000.00 to the complainant, and imposed a P5,000.00 fine for noncompliance with IBP-CBD orders.
Legal Violations Identified by the Court
The Court identified that Buri's failure to file and re-file the annulment petition, alongside her misrepresentations regarding the status of the case, constituted violations of several provisions in the CPR, including Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 which underscores the diligent service owed to clients. Furthermore, her actions displayed a lack of competence, expressed through deceitful conduct and failure to return unearned fees, in violation of Canons 1 and 15.
Conclusion on the Court’s Ruling
The Court affirmed the recommendations to suspend Buri for two years, uphold the return of the client’s fees due to her professional misconduct, and imp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12296)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a verified complaint filed by Pia Marie B. Go (complainant) against Atty. Grace C. Buri (respondent) on December 15, 2015.
- The complaint was lodged with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) and sought disciplinary actions against the respondent for alleged unprofessional conduct.
Facts of the Case
- In September 2012, complainant retained respondent’s legal services to facilitate the annulment of her marriage.
- Complainant paid the respondent a total of P150,000.00 on January 17, 2013, which was characterized as a "package engagement fee" for professional services.
- Although the complainant was informed that a petition for annulment had been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa (RTC), she did not receive a copy of the petition despite multiple requests.
- In February 2013, the complainant asked the respondent to pause her case, leading the respondent to claim she would withdraw the petition.
- In February 2015, the complainant decided to proceed with the annulment but struggled to contact the respondent.
- After securing assistance from a lawyer friend, the complainant finally reached the respondent, who requested an additional P38,000.00 for re-filing the annulment case.
- The complainant expressed repeated demands for copies of the petitions and receipts for payments made, but the respondent failed to comply.
- Upon investigating at the RTC, the complainant discovered that no petition for annulment had been filed by the respondent.
- The subsequent confrontation led the respondent to promise to file the petition, which she failed to do, ultimately prompting the co