Title
Lazareto vs. Acorda
Case
A.C. No. 9603
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2015
Atty. Acorda negligently mishandled Lazareto’s estate settlement, lost property titles, and filed fake documents, violating professional ethics, leading to a 3-year suspension.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9603)

Background of the Complaint

Lazareto, acting on behalf of his family, engaged Acorda’s services in January 2004 for the extrajudicial settlement of the estate, with a specific deadline of May 26, 2004, to avail of a tax deduction. Lazareto paid Acorda a total of P120,000.00, which included an acceptance fee and payments for extrajudicial transactions. Despite repeated follow-ups and additional payments totaling over P250,000.00, Acorda failed to file the necessary documents by the deadline and became unresponsive.

Alleged Violations

Lazareto charged Acorda with violations including:

  • Canon 1: Upholding the Constitution and obeying laws.
  • Canon 7: Upholding the integrity of the legal profession.
  • Canon 18: Serving clients with competence and diligence.
  • Rule 18.03: Negligence in handling a legal matter.
  • Rule 18.04: Failure to keep a client informed.

Findings and Developments

After many follow-ups, including the loss of the title to one of the lots, Acorda sent Lazareto a report acknowledging omissions but did not return funds or finalize the legal documents. Lazareto engaged in negotiations for an amicable settlement, which Acorda also failed to honor. Eventually, Lazareto discovered no extrajudicial settlement was filed with the Register of Deeds, only a fraudulent deed of sale of Lot B, which was executed under dubious circumstances.

Respondent's Defense

In Acorda's defense, he cited lack of control over document processing and alleged theft of funds by a staff member, claiming he acted in good faith to fulfill his obligations. He asserted that Lazareto’s impatience contributed to delays and suggested that Lazareto abandoning the complaint and executing an affidavit of desistance contradicted the claims of negligence.

Investigative Findings

The IBP Investigating Commissioner, after reviewing the case, found Acorda negligent but not acting in bad faith. He recommended severe censure for the respondent due to negligence but noted he made efforts, albeit delayed, to finalize some documents. The IBP Board later suspended Acorda for one month for failing to meet his obligations.

Appeal and Reversal of Resolution

Acorda sought reconsideration based on new developments, including returning the lost title. However, Lazareto objected, arguing that Acorda's actions had severely impacted trust and involved significant misrepresentation, requesting a more severe sanction, ideally a six-month suspension.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found the IBP's dismissal to be inappropriate given Acorda's significant breaches and negligence in handling the legal matters entrusted to him. They emphasized the importance of honesty and integrity in the legal profession, highlighting

...continue reading

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