Nicolas vs. Laki

A lawyer who has already been disbarred in a prior administrative case cannot be disbarred anew for subsequent misconduct; the Court may instead impose a fine in lieu of disbarment. The penalty of disbarment cannot be served twice, and where the respondent's continued practice of law is already barred by a prior disbarment, the Court may impose a monetary fine as the appropriate sanction for subsequent violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Norma Nicolas sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jose Laki, an attorney who had previously been her brother's counsel in a nullity of marriage case. The complaint was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which serves as the investigating arm of the Supreme Court in administrative cases against lawyers. Respondent had previously been disbarred in Kenneth R. Mariano vs. Atty. Jose N. Laki (A.C. No. 11978, September 25, 2018) for reasons substantially similar to those complained of in the present case, involving the same pattern of accepting payment for legal services never rendered.

Complainant Norma Nicolas sought legal assistance in November 2005 for the nullity of marriage case of her brother Joseph Darag, a Filipino based in Japan. She initially approached Atty. Adoracion Umipig, who referred her to respondent Atty. Jose Laki, an old friend and former officemate of Atty. Umipig, who volunteered to handle the case. Respondent informed complainant he would file the case in Balanga, Bataan, where he claimed to have successfully completed a similar petition in only three months. He charged a fee of P130,000.00 and assured her the annulment proceedings would be finished by the first week of April 2006.

About a month later, respondent fetched Atty. Umipig in Manila and met with complainant in Mabalacat City, Pampanga, where she gave him the initial payment of P100,000.00, discounted to P95,000.00, with Atty. Umipig present during the payment. In March 2006, respondent requested additional payment and reassured complainant that the case was almost finished, so she had Atty. Umipig deposit P20,000.00 to the bank account of respondent's mother. In April 2006, respondent told complainant and Atty. Umipig that Judge Vianzon, who was presiding over the case, was on leave, but he nevertheless guaranteed the case was almost done. After the holy week, complainant could no longer contact respondent, and Atty. Umipig's attempts to reach him also failed.

Atty. Umipig eventually located respondent, but he simply made excuses, claiming that Judge Vianzon was hesitant to issue a favorable decision but that he had managed to convince the judge to do so anyway. He further claimed that the sheriff was already serving copies of the decision to the National Statistics Office and the Local Civil Registrar in Nueva Ecija, where Joseph's marriage took place. Thereafter, respondent became elusive once again. In November 2006, complainant went to Balanga, Bataan to check on the status of Joseph's annulment case and discovered that no case was ever filed by respondent. She sought Atty. Umipig's help to compel respondent to return the money she had paid. They eventually contacted respondent, who promised to return the money but never made good on his promise, and he also ignored the demand letter she sent him.

The present case mirrored the factual milieu of Mariano, where respondent had accepted P150,000.00 from a client for an annulment petition he never filed, made false assurances about a "friendly judge" in Tarlac, and failed to return the money despite demand. In both cases, respondent exhibited a pattern of accepting payment for legal services never rendered, making deceitful assurances about the progress of cases, avoiding his clients, and disregarding the IBP's directives during the administrative proceedings. Respondent failed to refute the charges against him, failing to file an answer despite multiple opportunities, failing to file his position paper, and failing to attend the clarificatory hearing.

• Violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Complainant alleged that respondent violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 10, Rule 10.01; Canon 15, Rule 15.06; Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR through his misrepresentations, deceitful conduct, and misappropriation of money entrusted to him.
• Failure to Render Legal Services: Complainant alleged that respondent accepted P115,000.00 to handle her brother's nullity of marriage case but never filed any petition, made false assurances about the case's progress, and became elusive when she tried to contact him.
• Failure to Return Money: Complainant alleged that respondent promised to return the money he received but never made good on his promise, and he ignored the demand letter she sent him.

• No Response Filed: Respondent failed to file any answer despite seeking an extension to file one until August 16, 2007, and again failed to file when given a fresh period of fifteen days until May 9, 2017.
• Failure to Comply with Directives: Respondent failed to file his position paper despite being given ten days to do so by the investigating commissioner's Order dated November 8, 2017.
• Failure to Appear: Respondent failed to attend the clarificatory hearing on May 4, 2018 where Atty. Umipig testified against him.

• Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01: Whether respondent's deceitful conduct in accepting payment for legal services he never rendered constitutes a violation of the rule prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.04: Whether respondent's statements implying that he could influence a judge or obtain a favorable decision through close ties with the judge violate the rule prohibiting attribution to a judge of motives not supported by the record.
• Violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.06: Whether respondent's act of telling complainant he could get a favorable decision and boasting he convinced the presiding judge violates the rule prohibiting a lawyer from stating or implying that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative body.
• Violation of Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03: Whether respondent's failure to account for and return the money he received from complainant violates the rules on holding client funds in trust.
• Violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03: Whether respondent's failure to file the petition for nullity of marriage constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him.
• Imposition of Penalty: Whether respondent, having already been disbarred in a prior case, can be disbarred anew, or whether a fine in lieu of disbarment should be imposed.

• Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01: Yes. Respondent's acceptance of payment for services he never rendered, his false assurances about the case's progress, and his failure to return the money constitute unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in violation of the rule.
• Violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.04: Yes. Respondent's deceitful assurances that a favorable decision could be obtained by being in cahoots with a "friendly" judge cast doubt on the integrity of the courts and undermine public confidence in the legal profession.
• Violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.06: Yes. Respondent's act of telling complainant he could get a favorable decision and boasting he was able to convince the presiding judge shows disrespect toward the independence of the Judiciary and gives the false impression that judges may be influenced or swayed.
• Violation of Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03: Yes. Respondent's failure to render an accounting of the money received and to return it when the intended purpose did not materialize constitutes a blatant disregard of the rules on holding client funds in trust.
• Violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03: Yes. Respondent's failure to file the petition for nullity of marriage, the very pleading which would have initiated the entire process, constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him.
• Imposition of Penalty: No double disbarment. Since respondent had already been disbarred in a prior case, the Court imposed a P40,000.00 fine in lieu of disbarment, plus a separate P20,000.00 fine for defiance of the IBP's directives, and ordered restitution of P115,000.00 with interest.

• Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01: The Court found that respondent's pattern of behavior in the present case did not stray from that in Mariano — he accepted money from his client for handling a nullity of marriage case, failed to file any petition, failed to return the client's money despite demand, and made it difficult for his client to contact him. Having received payment for services which were not rendered, respondent was unjustified in keeping complainant's money, and his failure to return it gives rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of, the trust reposed in him by the client.

• Violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.04: The Court quoted its holding in Mariano that respondent's deceitful assurances gave the implication that a favorable decision could be obtained by being in cahoots with a "friendly" judge, giving a negative impression that decisions of courts can be decided merely on the basis of close ties with the judge and not necessarily on the merits. Such statements cast doubt on the integrity of the courts in the eyes of the public and undermine the trust and faith of the public in the legal profession.

• Violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.06: The Court found that respondent's act of telling complainant that he could get a favorable decision should he file the petition in Bataan, and thereafter boasting he was able to convince the presiding judge who had misgivings regarding the purported case, shows respondent's disrespect toward the independence of the Judiciary. His actions gave the false impression that judges may be influenced or swayed, causing public confidence in the Judiciary to erode.

• Violation of Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03: The Court emphasized that the fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for money or property collected or received for or from his client. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent, and if he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it. Respondent's failure to render an accounting and to return the money constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01.

• Violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03: Citing Zaldivar vs. Cabanes, the Court held that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes properly representing the client, preparing and filing the required pleadings, and prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch. The lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. Respondent violated the rule when he neglected to file Joseph's petition for nullity of marriage, the very pleading which would have initiated the entire process, and instead made excuses and foisted lies upon lies onto complainant to lead her to believe there was actual progress when there was none.

• Imposition of Penalty: The Court found more reason to disbar respondent than in Mariano, but could not disbar him anew because double disbarment cannot be imposed. Citing Punla vs. Villa-Ona, the Court noted that where a respondent could no longer serve the penalty of disbarment due to a prior disbarment, a fine may be imposed instead. The Court imposed a P40,000.00 fine in lieu of disbarment, distinct and separate from the P20,000.00 fine imposed by the IBP for respondent's failure to comply with its directives. The Court also ordered respondent to return P115,000.00 to complainant, consisting of the P95,000.00 initial payment and the P20,000.00 deposited to his mother's bank account, with interest in accordance with Nacar vs. Gallery Frames.

• Double Disbarment Prohibition — A lawyer who has already been disbarred in a prior administrative case cannot be disbarred anew for subsequent misconduct, as the penalty of disbarment cannot be served twice. In such cases, the Court may impose a fine in lieu of disbarment. The Court applied this doctrine in the present case, noting that respondent had already been disbarred in Mariano for substantially similar conduct, and thus imposed a P40,000.00 fine instead.

• Fiduciary Duty of Lawyers Over Client Funds — The fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for money or property collected or received for or from his client. When a lawyer collects money from a client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent; if he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it. Failure to render an accounting and to return the money constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the CPR.

• Lawyer's Duty of Competence and Diligence — A lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing cases or giving sound legal advice, but also properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him. A lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03.

• Misappropriation Presumption — A lawyer's failure to return money received from a client for services not rendered gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of, the trust reposed in him by the client. This constitutes a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, as it impairs public confidence in the legal profession.

• "Having received payment for services which were not rendered, Atty. Laki was unjustified in keeping Mariano's money. His obligation was to immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where he pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself with good fidelity to his clients." — This passage articulates the core violation of the fiduciary duty owed by lawyers to their clients and the obligation to return funds when the intended purpose does not materialize.

• "Atty. Laki's deceitful assurances give the implication that a favorable decision can be obtained by being in cahoots with a 'friendly' judge. It gives a negative impression that decisions of the courts can be decided merely on the basis of close ties with the judge and not necessarily on the merits." — This passage defines the harm caused by a lawyer's implication that he can influence judicial officers, which undermines public confidence in the Judiciary.

• "For in this jurisdiction, we do not impose double disbarment." — This concise statement establishes the doctrine that a lawyer who has already been disbarred cannot be disbarred anew, and that a fine may be imposed in lieu of disbarment.

• "Indeed, the facts laid down in Mariano do not stray from the present case. Respondent did not change his pattern of behavior, only his victim." — This passage highlights the Court's recognition of respondent's recidivist conduct and justifies the severity of the penalty imposed.

• Kenneth R. Mariano vs. Atty. Jose N. Laki, A.C. No. 11978, September 25, 2018 — Controlling precedent involving the same respondent, disbarred for substantially similar conduct of accepting payment for an annulment petition never filed. The Court reproduced the facts of this case to demonstrate respondent's pattern of behavior and found the present case mirrored it in all substantial aspects.

• Punla vs. Villa-Ona, 816 Phil. 776, 784-785 (2017) — Followed as the authority for the doctrine that double disbarment cannot be imposed; where a respondent has already been disbarred in a prior case, a fine may be imposed instead.

• Zaldivar vs. Cabanes, 713 Phil. 530, 538 (2013) — Cited for the definition of a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence, including properly representing the client, preparing and filing required pleadings, and prosecuting cases with reasonable dispatch.

• Enriquez vs. Lavadia, Jr., 760 Phil. 1, 13 (2015) — Cited as a case where respondent was disbarred for a proven propensity for filing motions for extension without filing the required pleading, in violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03.

• Mariveles vs. Mallari, 292 Phil. 34, 38 (1993) — Cited as a case where the Court disbarred respondent for failing to file his client's appellant's brief despite being granted a 245-day extension.

• Figueras vs. Jimenez, 729 Phil. 101, 112 (2014) — Cited as a case where respondent was found administratively liable for failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his client.

• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013) — Cited for the applicable interest rates: twelve percent (12%) per annum from demand until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.

• Domingo vs. Revilla, A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018 — Cited in support of the proposition that conduct diminishing the image of the Judiciary in the eyes of the public should not be taken lightly.

• Go vs. Buri, A.C. No. 12296, December 4, 2018 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer must return money received from a client for failure to render the legal service required under the attorney-client relation.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to respondent's acceptance of payment for services never rendered and his false assurances about the case's progress.
• Canon 11, Rule 11.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case. Applied to respondent's statements implying that a favorable decision could be obtained through a "friendly" judge.
• Canon 15, Rule 15.06, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from stating or implying that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative body. Applied to respondent's boasts that he could convince the presiding judge to issue a favorable decision.
• Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client, and to deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. Applied to respondent's failure to account for and return the P115,000.00 he received from complainant.
• Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Applied to respondent's failure to file the petition for nullity of marriage, the very pleading which would have initiated the entire process.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, De Los Santos, Gaerlan, Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the case text.