Title
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite vs. Mas
Case
A.C. No. 8219
Decision Date
Aug 29, 2023
Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, a prosecutor, was found guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty for extorting PHP 58,000 from litigants. Despite prior disbarment, the Court recorded the penalty and ordered restitution.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8219)

Allegations and Background

The allegations originated from events reported in a complaint filed by two individuals, Anabelle Sarte Gaaa and Lauro Sarte, alongside their aunt Elvira Shibuya. They contended that Atty. Mas unlawfully demanded and received PHP 58,000.00 from them, purportedly for the resolution of an estafa case involving Lauro Sarte against Sylvia Dayrit et al. They claimed that this amount was solicited after Atty. Mas assured them of a swift and favorable outcome in their case, despite having already paid the legitimate docket fees.

Procedural Developments

Following the initial complaint, Atty. Mas failed to respond to the Court's directives, leading to difficulties in locating him. Multiple attempts were made by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to find his whereabouts, but he had provided false addresses in official documents. Consequently, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further investigation. On January 15, 2019, the IBP issued a report noting that Atty. Mas's actions constituted extortion and foul conduct, warranting disbarment.

Findings of the IBP and Rulings

The IBP's investigation concluded that Atty. Mas had engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct by extorting money under the guise of facilitating a favorable resolution of the estafa case. The IBP found him liable for deceit and misconduct but noted that since he was already serving a previous disbarment, any additional disciplinary measures would be moot.

Court's Final Decision and Rationale

The Court endorsed the IBP's finding of guilt concerning the serious violations committed by Atty. Mas but clarified that double disbarment is not permissible in this jurisdiction. The Court recorded the finding of misconduct for the purpose of future proceedings if the respondent sought reinstatement. Consequently, Atty. Mas was ordered to return PHP 58,000.00 to the complaini

...continue reading

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