Case Summary (A.C. No. 6387)
Grounds for Complaints
The complainants alleged negligence against Atty. So for failing to inform them about the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the lower court's ruling and for not taking appropriate actions to elevate their case to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the complaints against Atty. Ancheta indicated that he engaged in extortion by soliciting P200,000 from the Tolentinos, promising a motion to reopen their appeal, which he never filed.
Sequence of Events
Atty. Coronado initially managed the appeal, but after his replacement, Atty. So did not keep the complainants informed about the proceedings. Following the Court of Appeals' adverse decision, the complainants sought Atty. Ancheta’s help. They paid an acceptance fee and were later deceived into providing an additional sum under the pretense of bribing justices to favorably reconsider their case. This led to their discovery that no motion had been filed and that the appellate decision had become final.
Legal Proceedings Initiated
In May 2004, the complainants filed a complaint seeking disbarment against Atty. So for neglect and Atty. Ancheta for fraud. Despite Atty. So’s defense noting that he had resigned from the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance prior to the promulgation of the Court of Appeals decision, the failure of Atty. Ancheta to respond to the allegations led to a waiver of comment and subsequent investigation.
Investigation by the Integrated Bar
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines conducted an investigation into the charges against both respondents. Mandatory conferences were scheduled, but Atty. Ancheta repeatedly failed to attend. Ultimately, the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended acquittal for Atty. So due to insufficient evidence while finding Atty. Ancheta guilty of serious misconduct.
SC Ruling on Atty. So
The Supreme Court upheld the Integrated Bar’s recommendation concerning Atty. So, indicating that since he had no connection with the case at the time of the adverse decision, and given the absence of sufficient evidence to substantiate negligence, Atty. So was absolved of the charges leveled against him.
SC Ruling on Atty. Ancheta
Conversely, the Court found Atty. Ancheta guilty of gross professional misconduct. His failure to comply with the Court's Resolutions and the substantiated receipt of compensation without rendering appropriate
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 6387)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a disbarment complaint against Atty. Henry B. So for negligence in handling a legal case and Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta for allegedly extorting P200,000.00 from the complainants.
- Complainant Flordeliza C. Tolentino was the defendant in a civil case (Civil Case No. SC-2267) concerning the recovery of possession of a parcel of land, with the case initiated by Benjamin Caballes.
Procedural History
- A decision rendered on June 24, 1991, by the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, ordered Flordeliza to vacate the land.
- The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, initially represented by Atty. Edilberto U. Coronado, who was later replaced by Atty. Henry B. So.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision without the complainants being informed by Atty. So or taking necessary actions to escalate the case to the Supreme Court.
Allegations Against Atty. Ancheta
- After losing the appeal, the Tolentinos hired Atty. Ancheta, paying him an acceptance fee of P30,000.00.
- Atty. Ancheta promised to file a "motion to reopen appeal case" and persuaded the complainants to give him an additional P200,000.00, claiming it was necessary for bribing the Justices of the Court of Appeals.
- The complainants la