Adelita R Llunar vs Atty Romulo Romulo Ricafort
comp co mpla lain inan ant ts s
AC No. 6484 - June 16 201
resp re spon onde dent nt vi viol olat ated ed Rul ule e 67 67.0 .08 8 of th the e *o *ode de of
prop pr oper erty ty.
5nde 5n derr
thes th ese e
fact fa cts, s,
the th e
!"e #acts$
$rofessional Responsibility 'CPR ' CPR), ), which states that 9a
In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
Atty. Romulo Ricafort for the recovery of a parcel of
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
land la nd ow owne ned d by th the e Ba Bane ne fa fami mily ly bu butt wh whic ich h wa was s
render him liable.:
fraudulently fraudul ently registered registered to a di!erent di!erent name. "he lot
Second,, Second
was the sub# sub#ect ect of for foreclo eclosur sure e pro proceed ceedings ings,, henc hence, e,
demand,
Ade deli lita ta
complainant for handling the latters case. ;n three
gave ga ve
to
Att tty y.
Rica Ri cafo fort rt
the th e
amou am ount nt
of
the th e
res espo pond nden entt
the
fail fa iled ed
amounts
given
to to
ret etur urn, n, him
by
upon up on the
$%&,000.00 $%&,000.0 0 'partial redemption fee, as (ling fees, and
separate occasions, the respondent received from the
attor att orney neys s
complainant the amounts of $6%,000.00, $<0,000.00,
fees). fee s).
"hre "h ree e
years yea rs lat later, er, co compl mplain ainant ant
learned that Atty. Ricafort did not (le any case with
and an d
the R"* of +egapi *ity, hence, she demanded the
mortg mor tgage aged d pr prope operty rty fr from om the ban ban- and (li (ling ng th the e
return ret urn of $%&, $%&,000 000.00. .00. "he latte latterr aver averred red that ther there e
necessar nece ssary y civ civil il case> case>s s agai against nst Ard *ervantes. *ervantes. "he
was a complaint for annulment of title (led against
compla com plaina inant nt
Ard Ar d *e *erv rvan ante tes, s, th thou ough gh no nott hi him, m, bu butt by an anot othe herr
times thereafter to follow up on the case>s to be (led
lawyer lawy er.. "hu "hus, s, he was willing willing to ref refund und the amount
supposedly by the respondent who, in turn, reassured
less the $&0,000.00 which he gave to Atty. Abitria.
her that actions on her case had been ta-en.
Adelita refused to recognie the case (led by Atty.
After Af ter the comp complain lainant ant disc discover overed ed thr three ee year years s late laterr
Abitria, insisting insisting she did not hire him as counsel also,
that the respondent had not (led any case in court,
the th e com compl plain aintt was (l (led ed thr three ee yea years rs lat late e and the
she demanded that the respondent return the amount
prop pr oper erty ty
banba n-
of $%&,0 $%&,000.0 00.00, 0, but her demand was lef leftt unh unheede eeded. d.
anymor any more. e. She also lear learned ned that Atty. Atty. Ric Ricafor afortt was
"he respond respondent ent later promise promised d to pay her, but until
inde(nitely suspended from the practice of law since
now, no w, no pay paymen mentt of any amount amount has been mad made. e.
2002 in A.*. o. &0&/, thus she suspected it was the
"hese facts con(rm that the respond respondent ent violated
cann ca nnot ot
be
red edee eeme med d
from fr om
the th e
$=,& $= ,&00 00.0 .00 0
forr fo
purp pu rpos oses es
of
rede re deem emin ing g
the th e
appr ap proac oached hed the re resp spond ondent ent sev severa erall
reason why another lawyer (led the case.
*anon 6= of the *$R, which mandates every lawyer to
!"e %ssue$
9hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
het h ethe herr
or
nott no
Att tty y.
Rica Ri cafo fort rt
shou sh ould ld
be
held he ld
that may come into his possession: and to 9account 1
administratively liable.
for all money or property collected or received for or
!"e Rulin&$
from fro m the clie client.: nt.: In ad addit dition ion,, a law lawye yers rs fai failur lure e to
The
2
resp re spon ond den entt
is
foun fo und d
gui uilt lty y
of
Gra rave ve
return upon demand the funds or property he holds
Misconduct in his dealings with his client and in
for his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
engagi eng aging ng in the practice practice of law while under
appropriated these funds or property for his own use
inden ind enite ite sus suspen pensio sion, n, and thu thus s imp impose ose upo upon n
to th the e pr pre# e#ud udic ice e of of,, an and d in vi viol olat atio ion n of th the e tr trus ustt
him the ultimate penalty of DISBAM!"T#
reposed in him by his client.
"he respon respondent dent in this case committed several infractions
being bein g fort forthrig hright ht with the comp complain lainant ant that he was
misconduct. First , the respondent did not e1ert due
under inde(nite suspension from the practice of law.
dilig di ligenc ence e in ha hand ndlin ling g th the e com compl plain ainan ants ts cas case. e. 3e
"he respondent respondent should have disclosed this fact at the
failed to act prompt promptly ly in redeeming the complainan complainants ts
time he was approached by the complainant for his
proper pr operty ty with within in the per period iod of red redempti emption. on. hat is
services. *anon 6& of the *$R states that 9a lawyer
worse is the delay of three years before a complaint
shall observe candor , fairness and loyalty in all his
to recover the property was actually (led in court. "he
deali de aling ngs s and tra transa nsacti ctions ons wi with th hi his s cl clien ients. ts.: : "he
respondent clearly dilly4dallied on the complainants
respondent lac-ed the candor e1pected of him as a
case and wasted precious time and opportunity that
member
the th en
rea ead dily
him
liable
ava vaiilab ablle
to
for
Third,, the respondent committed dishonesty by not Third
grave
wer ere e
ma-ing
8
rec ecov ove er
the th e
of
the
Bar
when
he
accepted
the
complainants case despite -nowing that he could not
penalty of suspension for (ve '&) years from the
and should not practice law.
practice of law would have been #usti(ed, but the
Lastly , the respondent was e!ectively in the practice
respondent
of law despite the inde(nite suspension imposed on
professions ethical rules he is a repeat violator of
him. "his infraction in(nitely aggravates the o!enses
these rules.
he committed. Based on the above facts alone, the
is
not
an ordinary violator of
the
