Case Summary (A.C. No. 6281)
Court's Initial Decision
On September 26, 2011, the Court suspended Respondent Atty. Macario D. Carpio from the practice of law for six months for unjustly retaining the owner's duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title No. O-94. The Court determined that Carpio was guilty of retaining the document to coerce Complainant Miranda into agreeing to unreasonable attorney’s fees, despite Miranda's repeated demands for its return.
Continued Noncompliance
On November 28, 2013, the Court received correspondence from Complainant Miranda indicating that Respondent had yet to comply with the earlier suspension order regarding the return of the Owner's Duplicate Copy. Respondent was subsequently ordered to file an Explanation/Compliance, leading to another suspension of six months on January 15, 2020, as determined by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The Court stressed that Cargio's reasoning—that Miranda should have personally claimed the document—did not excuse his failure to comply with the court's directive.
Allegations of Illness and Inability to Comply
Respondent claimed that his inability to return the Owner's Duplicate Copy stemmed from his health issues, including a diagnosis of prostate cancer and surgery in July 2018. He asserted that this condition rendered him bedridden and unable to travel. He also indicated that he had not practiced law since his diagnosis, arguing that this should be seen as compliance with the court's suspension order.
Lack of Document Submission
Despite Respondent's claims, he failed to attach the Owner's Duplicate Copy in his submissions to the Court. His counsel, Atty. Christine P. Carpio-Aldeguer, contended that the unsigned letter from Complainant's widow, Blecilda D. Miranda, lacked evidentiary weight. However, the Court found that the absence of a signature did not impede its investigation into Respondent's compliance with court orders.
Willful Disobedience and Consequences
The Court found Atty. Carpio guilty of willful disobedience. It reiterated that administrative cases do not strictly adhere to technical rules of evidence, allowing for reasonable evidence gathering. Furthermore, Respondent’s continuous defiance over the years constituted a serious violation of lawful court orders, as outlined in Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, which pertains to disbarment and suspension grounds.
Professional Responsibility Violations
Moreover, the Court detailed that Respondent's actions violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that lawyers maintain respect for the judiciary. Respondent had failed to return the owner's duplicate certificate for over a decade. The Court dismissed his claims of illness as justifiable excuses, emphasizing that he had been directed to comply with the court order long before his health issues arose.
Imposition of Indefinite Suspension and Directive for Compliance
Given the gravity of Respondent's disregard for multiple court orders, the Court deemed it necessary to impose indefinite suspension from practice. It ruled that Atty. Carpio-Direccio must surre
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 6281)
Case Background
- The case involves a complaint against Atty. Macario D. Carpio by Valentin C. Miranda, who is now deceased.
- The initial decision, dated September 26, 2011, resulted in a six-month suspension of Respondent Atty. Carpio for unjustly withholding the Owner's Duplicate Copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-94 from Complainant Miranda.
- The Court found that Atty. Carpio's actions were aimed at coercing Miranda into paying an exorbitant attorney’s fee.
Subsequent Developments
- On November 28, 2013, the Court received a letter indicating that Atty. Carpio had failed to comply with the Court's earlier decision to return the Owner's Duplicate Copy.
- The Court mandated Atty. Carpio to submit an Explanation/Compliance/Motion to Lift Order of Suspension on October 28, 2014.
- Following a recommendation from the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), a further suspension of six months was imposed on January 15, 2020, reaffirming the directive to return the Owner’s Duplicate Copy.
Respondent's Justifications
- Atty. Carpio claimed that the failure to return the Owner's Duplicate Copy was due to Miranda's failure to collect it personally and attributed his inaction to his advanced age and health issues (prostate cancer).
- He argued that he could not per