Case Summary (A.C. No. 10267)
Complaint and Allegations
Helen Gradiola filed a complaint against Atty. Romulo A. Deles, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 9.01, Rule 9.02 of Canon 9; and Rule 10.1 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10. Helen asserted that Atty. Deles, while representing her in a civil case pending before the Court of Appeals, engaged in unethical practices by delegating his legal responsibilities to Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta. Helen's claim included that Atty. Deles misled her regarding her case and allowed Atty. Araneta, who had been disbarred, to handle significant legal work, including research and drafting pleadings.
Financial Transactions and Misrepresentation
Helen detailed financial dealings where she paid Atty. Araneta a total of P207,500.00 between May 2005 and October 2006 for legal expenses related to the case. She alleged that Atty. Deles split these fees with Atty. Araneta and falsely assured her of their professional connections within the CA that would aid her case. Discovering that Atty. Araneta was disbarred and the purported CA resolution was fabricated, Helen pursued a criminal complaint for estafa and falsification against both Atty. Deles and Atty. Araneta for their alleged roles in defrauding her.
Administrative Proceedings and Health Issues of Respondent
Upon filing the disbarment complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) ordered Atty. Deles to submit an answer. Atty. Deles' son, John P. Deles, informed the IBP that his father suffered a stroke and was in a "vegetative state," requesting a suspension of the proceedings. Helen opposed this motion, asserting that Atty. Deles could secure representation. The IBP denied the request for suspension and required Atty. Deles to respond.
Investigation and Defense Position
John P. Deles secured the services of Atty. Carlito V. Mampang Jr. to represent his father, although the response was signed by John rather than Atty. Deles. The defense claimed that Atty. Deles was a victim of Atty. Araneta's deceit, asserting that he had never entered into a legitimate attorney-client relationship and was misrepresented in the documents submitted. However, the Investigating Commissioner found that Helen consistently dealt with and was represented by Atty. Deles directly, and thus his claims of being uninvolved were unconvincing.
Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
The Investigating Commissioner, Oliver A. Cachapero, recommended a one-year suspension for Atty. Deles, citing violations of professional responsibility rules and the belief that both attorneys were engaged in a broader fraudulent scheme against clients. The Commissioner rejected claims that Helen was complicit in the deception and emphasized that the actions taken against her warranted serious professional scrutiny.
Court's Ruling and Due Process Considerations
The Court acknowledged that Atty. Araneta was not a licensed attorney and underscored concerns about Atty. Deles’ involvement in fraudulent conduct. However, given Atty. Deles’ medical condition, the Court highlighted that he was not adequately represented and had not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Cou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10267)
Overview of the Case
- This case concerns a disbarment complaint filed by Helen Gradiola against Atty. Romulo A. Deles, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The complaint specifically cites Rule 9.01 and Rule 9.02 of Canon 9, as well as Rule 10.1 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10.
- Helen claimed that Atty. Deles, her counsel in a civil case pending before the Court of Appeals (CA), engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by delegating his duties to another attorney, Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta.
Allegations Against Respondent
- Helen asserted that Atty. Deles allowed Atty. Araneta to handle legal research and the preparation of pleadings for her case.
- She was assured by Atty. Deles that her case was in "good hands" due to a supposed contact in the CA in Cebu City.
- Helen was shown a purported resolution from the CA which falsely declared her and her spouse as the rightful owners of the contested properties.
Financial Transactions
- Over the course of the representation, from May 2005 until October 2006, Helen paid Atty. Araneta a total of PHP 207,500.00 for legal services, believing him to be a licensed attorney.
- It was later revealed that Atty. Araneta had been disbarred and the resolutions provided to Helen were fabricated.
- Helen discovered that the genuine resolution from the CA indicated her and her husband's loss in the case, which had become final and irrevocable.