Case Summary (A.C. No. 12079)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: Eduardo B. Manalang, who sought legal services for annulment.
Respondent: Atty. Buendia, admitted to receiving substantial fees but denied acting as counsel, claiming only to be an intermediary.
Key Dates
2011: Engagement of respondent; initial payment schedule agreed.
April 2012–April 2013: Repeated follow-ups met by assurances or silence.
December 28, 2011: Date on fabricated Regional Trial Court decision.
February 17, 2012: Date on fabricated Certificate of Finality.
June 27, 2014: Filing of administrative complaint.
November 10, 2020: Resolution promulgated by the Supreme Court En Banc.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. VIII, § 5(5) – Supreme Court’s power to regulate the practice of law.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, § 27 – Grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct.
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Canon 1, Rules 1.01 & 1.02 – Prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; duty to uphold respect for law.
Fee Arrangement and Initial Representations
Manalang agreed to pay P 275,000 plus expenses for a faster annulment process. He made staggered payments totaling P 225,000 by May 2013, including acceptance fees and partial legal fees. Respondent assured completion within six to twelve months, promising further updates and additional sums only if necessary.
Communication and Attempts to Expedite Proceedings
From April 2012 onward, Manalang’s inquiries were met with verbal assurances or requests for trust. Between June and September 2012, respondent ceased answering calls and was unavailable for office meetings. In September 2012, respondent revealed that Atty. Salazar (later corrected as Tabbu) was allegedly handling the case filed in Ballesteros, Cagayan, promising resolution by November 6, 2012.
Lack of Case Filing and Fabricated Documents
Despite assurances, Manalang received no formal pleadings. In April 2013, he was given a photocopy of an alleged December 28, 2011 decision and a Certificate of Finality dated February 17, 2012, both of which upon inspection contained fabricated facts inconsistent with his narrative and showed no official filing.
Discovery of Fraud and Additional Payments
Respondent demanded an additional P 50,000 for civil‐registry registration, which Manalang paid on May 10, 2013, bringing total payments to P 225,000. Subsequent calls, texts (over 50 and 40 respectively), and four office visits yielded no substantive response. Manalang personally verified in Cagayan that no annulment case had been filed.
Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Defense
Manalang filed a disbarment complaint before the IBP. Respondent contended she acted only as intermediary for Atty. Tabbu, claimed ignorance of the case’s nonexistence, and disavowed responsibility for the decision and Certificate of Finality. She admitted receipt of fees but maintained they were passed on to Tabbu.
Applicable Ethical Standards and Grounds for Disbarment
Under Rule 138, § 27, deceit or gross misconduct warrants disbarment. CPR Canon 1 obliges lawyers to avoid dishonest or deceitful conduct. Failure to file a client’s case, issuance of fabricated court documents, misappropriation of fees, and breach of fiduciary duty violate Rules 1.01 and 1.02.
Comparison with Precedents
Madria v. Rivera and Billanes v. Latido involved attorneys who fabricated annulment decrees and certificates, resulting in disbarm
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12079)
Facts of the Case
- In 2011, Eduardo B. Manalang engaged Atty. Cristina B. Buendia to file a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage, at an agreed professional fee of ₱275,000 plus documentation and out-of-pocket expenses.
- Manalang paid a total of ₱10,000 and ₱15,000 as acceptance fees, ₱120,000 as partial payment for the proceedings, and ₱30,000 more during a meeting at Chowking in San Juan.
- Atty. Buendia initially assured Manalang that the case could be expedited to six months-one year; when Manalang later expressed willingness to follow the usual two-year process, Buendia insisted on her timeline and additional payments.
- Between June and September 2012, Buendia did not respond to Manalang’s calls or office visits. On September 7, 2012, she introduced Atty. Neil Salazar as the lawyer actually handling the case filed in Ballesteros, Cagayan, and promised results by November 6, 2012. No updates followed.
- From September 2012 to April 2013, Manalang’s repeated attempts to contact Buendia went unanswered. On April 15, 2013, Buendia claimed the annulment was resolved; on April 28, she reluctantly furnished Manalang a copy of a Ballesteros RTC decision dated December 28, 2011, and a Certificate of Finality dated February 17, 2012.
- On May 10, 2013, Buendia demanded an additional ₱50,000 for NSO registration of the decree, bringing Manalang’s total payments to ₱225,000 by that date.
- Upon inspection, Manalang discovered fabricated facts in the decision and, after about 90 unreturned calls/texts and multiple office visits, traveled to Cagayan where he learned no case had ever been filed.
Procedural History
- June 27, 2014: Manalang filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging Buendia with deceit and failure to file the annulment petition.
- Buendia filed an Answer, claiming she was only an intermediary and had referred the matter to Atty. Neil Tabbu in Cagayan.
- The IBP Investigating Commissioner found viola