Medina v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marcos Medina charged respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista with malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. Medina had approached Bautista for an amicable settlement of a reconveyance case filed against him by Maria Ragsac Cabel. Bautista demanded P500.00 for the settlement, accepting P35.00 initially and later P50.00, with promises of further payment. Despite agreeing to file a motion for extension to file an answer, Bautista instead filed a motion to declare Medina in default, leading to a decision detrimental to Medina. Subsequently, Bautista prepared two fictitious deeds of sale: one where Cabel allegedly sold the property to Medina for P8,000.00, and another where Medina reconveyed it to Cabel for P1,200.00. Cabel signed the first document without knowing its contents, believing it was necessary to recover the land. Medina paid Bautista a total of P500.00. Later, Cabel informed Atty. Jimenez, co-counsel of Bautista, that she had given P800.00 to Bautista to be deposited for the repurchase of the property, but Bautista failed to deposit the money and misappropriated it. An amicable settlement was eventually reached and implemented. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Solicitor General, who then referred it to the provincial fiscal of Cagayan. The Solicitor General submitted a report finding respondent guilty and recommending disbarment. A formal complaint was filed, to which respondent answered, denying the allegations and praying for dismissal, but also requesting to introduce additional evidence. Hearings were postponed, and upon respondent's and counsel's failure to appear, complainant submitted additional evidence, including decisions from the Court of Appeals finding respondent guilty of estafa. The case was then submitted for decision. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista for malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista committed malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. Whether the acts of the respondent constitute moral turpitude.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista is hereby disbarred and his name is ordered stricken off from the roll of attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Loreto U. Bautista committed malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar: The Court found that respondent committed malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar based on several established facts. Firstly, after agreeing to settle the case amicably, respondent prepared a motion for extension of time to file an answer but instead filed a motion to declare the complainant in default. Secondly, despite being aware of the decision in the civil case, respondent prepared two fictitious deeds of sale where the stated considerations were never received. Thirdly, while pretending to arrange an amicable settlement, respondent received sums totaling P500.00 from the complainant. Fourthly, respondent took advantage of the ignorance of his client, Maria Ragsac Cabel, by having her sign a document falsely stating she received P8,000.00. Finally, respondent received P800.00 from his client, Mrs. Cabel, with the understanding that it would be deposited for the repurchase of the property, but he misappropriated the money instead. These actions clearly demonstrate a breach of professional duty and ethical standards. On Whether the acts of the respondent constitute moral turpitude: The Court affirmed that the crime of estafa, for which respondent was convicted by the Court of Appeals, involves moral turpitude. The record shows that respondent was convicted of estafa in CA-G.R. No. 18560-R and was sentenced accordingly. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals made derogatory comments against respondent in CA-G.R. No. 21796-R, highlighting his violation of trust by failing to deposit P800.00 belonging to his client and converting it to his own use, and by lending his signature to spurious documents that caused his client to lose the land. The Court reiterated that a lawyer must be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him and that a high degree of fidelity and good faith is exacted. The conviction for estafa, coupled with the other fraudulent acts, unequivocally establishes that the respondent's conduct involved moral turpitude, which is a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who engages in acts constituting malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar, including estafa and misappropriation of client funds, is subject to disbarment.