Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Domingo v. Sacdalan

    Uploaded by

    Joesil Dianne Sempron
    Respondent lawyer was hired to recover a client's land from illegal settlers but failed to file the case. He borrowed P100,000 from the client under false pretenses. When confronted, he admitted furnishing a fake case receipt but blamed his staff. Both the IBP Commission and Board of Governors found the lawyer violated ethical rules regarding competence, borrowing from clients, and dishonesty. The Court disbarred the lawyer for these violations, ordering him to return all fees to the client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Domingo v. Sacdalan

    Uploaded by

    Joesil Dianne Sempron
    111 views2 pages
    Respondent lawyer was hired to recover a client's land from illegal settlers but failed to file the case. He borrowed P100,000 from the client under false pretenses. When confronted, he admitted furnishing a fake case receipt but blamed his staff. Both the IBP Commission and Board of Governors found the lawyer violated ethical rules regarding competence, borrowing from clients, and dishonesty. The Court disbarred the lawyer for these violations, ordering him to return all fees to the client.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent lawyer was hired to recover a client's land from illegal settlers but failed to file the case. He borrowed P100,000 from the client under false pretenses. When confronted, he admitted furnishing a fake case receipt but blamed his staff. Both the IBP Commission and Board of Governors found the lawyer violated ethical rules regarding competence, borrowing from clients, and dishonesty. The Court disbarred the lawyer for these violations, ordering him to return all fees to the client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views2 pages

    Domingo v. Sacdalan

    Uploaded by

    Joesil Dianne Sempron
    Respondent lawyer was hired to recover a client's land from illegal settlers but failed to file the case. He borrowed P100,000 from the client under false pretenses. When confronted, he admitted furnishing a fake case receipt but blamed his staff. Both the IBP Commission and Board of Governors found the lawyer violated ethical rules regarding competence, borrowing from clients, and dishonesty. The Court disbarred the lawyer for these violations, ordering him to return all fees to the client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Domingo v.

    Sacdalan
    AC No. 12475 March 26, 2019

    Facts:
    Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent to recover possession of a
    parcel of land from illegal settlers. The subject land is co-owned by complainant with her sister.
    respondent sent an Email to complainant seeking to borrow another P200,000.00 in the form of a
    cash advance, which would allegedly be charged against his appearance fees and other fees. He
    claimed that he was borrowing money for his wife's hospitalization. Complainant agreed to
    respondent's request for cash advance and gave him P100,000.00 out of compassion.

    Respondent did not give any updates to complainant regarding the case filed. Thus, she inquired
    directly with the MTC on the status of her case. To her surprise, she was informed that there was
    no such complaint for ejectment filed with the MTC. Consequently, complainant confronted
    respondent about the purported ejectment complaint. The latter explained that the non-filing of
    the complaint was due to the mistake of his office staff. Respondent assured her that the
    complaint would be filed.

    A complaint for ejectment was eventually filed in the MTC, however it was dismissed for lack of
    jurisdiction. It explained that the complaint did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements
    for ejectment as it neither alleged the requisites under forcible entry nor unlawful detainer.

    IBP-CBD: respondent violated the Code and recommended a penalty of suspension from the
    practice of law for two (2) years.

    IBP-BOG: adopted with modification the penalty recommended against respondent to suspension
    from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; and to pay a fine of P5,000.00.

    Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

    Held:
    Yes. The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Commission but modifies the recommended
    penalty of the IBP Board.

    In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated Rule 1.01, Rules 16.04, and 18.04 of the
    Code based on the substantial evidence presented by complainant.

    Respondent was tasked by complainant to file a complaint for ejectment before the court. To
    show his compliance, he furnished her with the alleged receiving copy of the complaint for
    ejectment filed before the MTC. However, it was discovered by complainant that no such
    complaint was actually filed. When confronted, respondent admitted the fake receiving copy but
    blamed his messenger for such wrongdoing.

    It must be underscored that borrowing money from a client is prohibited under Rule 16.04. A
    lawyer's act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It comes
    within those acts considered as abuse of client's confidence. The canon presumes that the client
    is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his or her
    obligation.

    Atty. Sacdalan is GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility. He is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll
    of Attorneys. He is also ordered to return complainant the amount of the legal deposit, cash
    advance, and other fees.

    You might also like