A.C. No. 9074.August 14, 2012.

*
GRACE M. ANACTA,** complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION, respondent.
Attorneys; Admission to the Bar; One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the
possession of good moral character.As early as In Re: Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 548-549 (1918), this Court held that: One
of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession of good moral character, and,
when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow such
moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and with
the courts, he disre_______________
* EN BANC.
** Also known as Grace Mino y Anacta.
353
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
353
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
gards the rule of professional ethics required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian of
the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct, to make use of its
powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused.
Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Code
exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and
good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
Same; Disbarment; The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of disbarment. It is allowed
by law to exercise its discretion either to disbar or just suspend the erring lawyer based on its appreciation of the facts
and circumstances of the case.In any of the following circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross
misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers
oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either the
extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension. Certainly, the Court is not placed in a straitjacket as regards the
penalty to be imposed. There is no ironclad rule that disbarment must immediately follow upon a finding of deceit or
gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of disbarment. It is allowed
by law to exercise its discretion either to disbar or just suspend the erring lawyer based on its appreciation of the facts
and circumstances of the case.
Same; Gross Misconduct; Failure to return the monies received from complainant despite repeated demands constitute
gross misconduct.In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 395 SCRA 386 (2003), the Court found respondent therein to have
committed dishonesty and abused the confidence of his client for failing to file the ejectment suit de354
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
spite asking for and receiving from the complainant the money intended as filing fees. In his bid for exoneration, therein
respondent attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that he has not yet received the registry return card of the notice
to vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit. However, the records indubitably showed that he had already
received the same. Moreover, therein respondent likewise refused to return the monies he received from the
complainant despite repeated demands. The Court thus concluded that therein respondent's actions constitute gross
misconduct. Nevertheless, based on its appreciation of the evidence, the Court refrained from imposing the penalty of
disbarment. Instead, it imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months.
Same; Disbarment; Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment less severe,
such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired.The Court is not bound to impose the
penalty of disbarment in cases of gross misconduct and/or dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in the exercise
of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be more commensurate. Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches,

should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish
the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of
the erring person. In this case, we believe that the penalty of suspension of four years will provide Atty. Resurreccion
with enough time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct. While we will not hesitate to remove an erring
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a
lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. We note that there is no mention in the records of any
previous or similar administrative case filed against herein respondent.
Same; Same; It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of the Court or
whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter involves violations of the lawyers
oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority.It is imperative to first determine
whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject
355
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
355
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of conduct, then it falls
within the Courts disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and
which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of
a judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the Courts disciplinary authority. Thus, we hold that
when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to the mental and moral fitness of the respondent to remain as member
of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed to return the amount received from his client shall
be deemed within the Courts disciplinary authority.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rex G. Rico and Jose Voltaire A. Bautista for complainant.
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
[T]he purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and
to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.1
In a Complaint2 for disbarment filed on August 22, 2007 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant Grace M. Anacta (complainant) prays for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Edu_______________
1 Diaz v. Atty. Gerong, 225 Phil. 44, 48; 141 SCRA 46, 49 (1986).
2 Rollo, pp. 1-6.
356
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
ardo D. Resurreccion (respondent) for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice.3
Records show that on November 15, 2004, complainant engaged the services of respondent to file on her behalf a
petition for annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for which she paid respondent
P42,000.00.4
In December 2004, respondent presented to the complainant a supposed copy of a Petition for Annulment of Marriage5
which bore the stamped receipt dated December 8, 2004 of the RTC, as well as its docket number, Civil Case No. 0425141.
From then on, complainant did not hear from respondent or receive any notice from the trial court relative to the said
petition. This prompted her to make inquiries with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City (OCCRTC). To her surprise and dismay, she discovered that no petition for annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141

was ever filed before the said court.6 Thus, complainant terminated the services of respondent for loss of trust and
confidence7 and requested the OCC-RTC to refuse any belated attempt on the part of respondent to file a petition for
annulment of marriage on her behalf.8
On July 30, 2007, complainant, through her new counsel, wrote a letter9 to the respondent demanding for an
explanation as to how respondent intended to indemnify the complainant for damages she had suffered due to
respondents deceitful acts. Respondent has not replied thereto. Hence,
_______________

3 Id., at p. 4.
4 See Service of Agreement dated November 15, 2004, id., at
p. 45.
5 Id., at pp. 9-12.
6 See Certification dated March 7, 2005, id., at p. 16.
7 See Letter dated March 6, 2005, id., at p. 15.
8 See Letter dated March 9, 2005, id., at p. 17.
9 Id., at p. 18.
357
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
357
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
complainant filed before the IBP a verified complaint praying that respondent be disbarred.
In an Order10 dated August 22, 2007, the Director for Bar Discipline of the IBP, Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, required the
respondent to submit his answer to the complaint within 15 days from notice. However, respondent did not heed said
directive. Hence, complainant filed Motions to Declare Respondent in Default and Hear the Case Ex-Parte.11 The
Investigating Commissioner, Romualdo A. Din, Jr., held in abeyance the resolution of the above motions and instead
set the complaint for Mandatory Conference on October 6, 2008.12 On the said date, however, only the complainant
and her counsel appeared. Accordingly, in an Order13 dated October 6, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner deemed
respondent to have waived the filing of an answer; noted complainants motion to declare respondent in default; and
gave the complainant 10 days from notice within which to file her verified position paper, after which the case shall be
deemed submitted for resolution.
Complainant filed her verified Position Paper14 on October 15, 2008.
In his Report and Recommendation15 dated December 8, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner found clear and
convincing evidence that respondent is guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he misrepresented having filed the petition
for annulment of marriage after receipt of P42,000.00 when in fact no such petition was filed. He thus recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period
_______________
10 Id., at p. 19.
11 Id., at pp. 20-21.
12 See Notice of Mandatory Conference, id., at p. 33.
13 Id., at p. 35.
14 Id., at pp. 36-44.
15 Id., at pp. 60-63.
358
358

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Anacta vs. Resurreccion
of two years and to reimburse/return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00.
In a Resolution16 dated August 28, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two
years to four years and ordered respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00, otherwise his
suspension will continue until he returns the sum involved.
Our Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
In Narag v. Atty. Narag17 this Court held that [t]he burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will
exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.
In this case, complainant submitted the following documents to prove her allegations: (1) the Service Agreement dated
November 15, 2004 to prove the existence of attorney-client relationship between the parties; (2) the Petition for
Annulment of Marriage18 supposedly filed by respondent on December 8, 2004 with the RTC of Quezon City and
docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141; (3) the Certification issued by the Assistant Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon
City showing that no Petition for Annulment of Marriage with Civil Case No. Q-0425141 was filed on December 8,
2004; (4) the letter dated March 6, 2005 of the complainant to the respondent informing the latter that she is
terminating his legal services effective immediately; (5) the letter of complainant to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
Quezon City wherein she re_______________
16 As quoted in the Notice of Resolution, id., at p. 59.
17 353 Phil. 643, 655-656; 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998).
18 Supra note 5.
359
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
359
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
quested that any belated attempt by my former lawyer Atty. Resurreccion to file any Petition for Annulment x x x be
refused acceptance; and, (6) the letter dated July 30, 2007 of complainants new counsel demanding for an
explanation as to how respondent intended to indemnify the complainant for damages she had suffered by reason of
respondents fraudulent misrepresentations.19
In the face of such a serious charge, the respondent has chosen to remain silent.
Thus, we find the confluence of the evidence submitted by the complainant to have clearly, convincingly and
satisfactorily shown that indeed the respondent has authored this reprehensible act. Respondent committed deceitful
and dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already filed a petition for annulment on behalf of the complainant
and pocketing the amount of P42,000.00. He even went to the extent of presenting to the complainant a supposed copy
of the petition duly filed with the court. After he was found out, he made himself scarce. He ignored all communications
sent to him by the complainant. After the disbarment complaint was filed, he failed to file his answer despite due notice.
He totally disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite receipt of summons. The act of respondent in not filing
his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating Commission, despite due notice, emphasized his
contempt for legal proceedings.20
We thus agree with the observation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner that [s]uch action of the respondent is
patently deceitful and dishonest, considering further that he received an amount of money from the complainant.21
The natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded
_______________
19 Supra note 9.
20 Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 342; 410 SCRA 258, 265 (2003).
21 Rollo, p. 68.

360
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
claim or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in
the face of false accusations. Hence, silence in such cases is almost always construed as implied admission of the truth
thereof.22
As early as In Re: Sotto,23 this Court held that:
One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession of good moral character,
and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow
such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and
with the courts, he disregards the rule of professional ethics required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of
the court, as guardian of the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional
conduct, to make use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused.
In addition, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes
but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them
pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.24
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, respondent may either be disbarred or suspended for
committing deceitful and dishonest acts. Thus:
_______________
22 Noel-Bertulfo v. Nuez, A.M. No. P-10-2758, February 2, 2010, 611 SCRA 270, 280 citing Grefaldeo v. Judge
Lacson, 355 Phil. 266, 271; 293 SCRA 524, 528 (1998).
23 38 Phil. 532, 548-549 (1918).
24 Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, supra note 20 at pp. 342-343; p. 266.
361
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
361
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
SEC.27.Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor.A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. [Emphasis supplied.]
It is thus clear from the foregoing provision that in any of the following circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice;
(3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the
lawyers oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose
either the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension. Certainly, the Court is not placed in a straitjacket as
regards the penalty to be imposed. There is no ironclad rule that disbarment must immediately follow upon a finding of
deceit or gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of disbarment. It is
allowed by law to exercise its discretion either to disbar or just suspend the erring lawyer based on its appreciation of
the facts and circumstances of the case.
We examined the records of the case and assessed the evidence presented by the complainant. After such
examination and assessment, we are convinced beyond doubt that respondent should only be meted the penalty of
four-year suspension as properly recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. In the exercise of our discretion, we
are unquestionably certain that the four-year suspension suffices and commensurable to the infractions he committed.
As will be pointed out later,

362
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
there have been cases with more or less the same factual setting as in the instant case where the Court also imposed
the penalty of suspension and not disbarment.
We have gone over jurisprudential rulings where the respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct and/or
dishonesty and we observe that the Court either disbars or suspends them based on its collective appreciation of
attendant circumstances and in the exercise of its sound discretion.
In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel,25 the Court found respondent therein to have committed dishonesty and abused the
confidence26 of his client for failing to file the ejectment suit despite asking for and receiving from the complainant the
money intended as filing fees. In his bid for exoneration, therein respondent attempted to mislead the Court by claiming
that he has not yet received the registry return card of the notice to vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit.
However, the records indubitably showed that he had already received the same. Moreover, therein respondent
likewise refused to return the monies he received from the complainant despite repeated demands.27 The Court thus
concluded that therein respondents actions constitute gross misconduct. Nevertheless, based on its appreciation of the
evidence, the Court refrained from imposing the penalty of disbarment. Instead, it imposed the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of six months, ratiocinating thus:
Complainant asks that respondent be disbarred. However, we find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient
to discipline respondent. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. While we will
not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it,
_______________
25 443 Phil. 479; 395 SCRA 386 (2003).
26 Id., at p. 486; p. 389.
27 Id., at p. 487; p. 388.
363
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
363
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. In this case, we find
suspension to be sufficient sanction against respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not primarily intended as
punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.28
In Ceniza v. Rubia,29 respondent therein was alleged to have misrepresented having already filed in court the
necessary complaint by showing the copy of the complaint stamped received with a docket number thereon.30
However, upon verification with the appropriate court, it was discovered that none was filed.31 It was also noted that
respondent therein prompted the complainant to borrow money from a third party just to be able to pay her attorneys
fees. When the case reached this Court, it imposed the penalty of suspension and not disbarment. In so doing, the
Court lent more credence to the explanation of the respondent that the case was withdrawn after it had been stamped
received by the court.
In Roa v. Moreno,32 the Court found respondent therein guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. He issued a bogus
Certificate of Land Occupancy to the complainant33 and refused to return the amount paid by the complainant.34 For
said infractions, the Court meted him with the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years.35
In Barcenas v. Alvero,36 respondent failed to deposit in court the amount of P300,000.00 which he received from his
client supposedly as redemption price. He also failed to return
_______________
28 Id., at p. 489; p. 392.
29 A.C. No. 6166, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 1.

30 Id., at p. 9.
31 Id., at pp. 4 and 9.
32 A.C. No. 8382, April 21, 2010, 618 SCRA 693.
33 Id., at p. 698.
34 Id., at p. 699.
35 Id., at p. 700.
36 A.C. No. 8159, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 1, 10.
364
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
the amount despite repeated demands. He was suspended for two years.
In Small v. Banares37 respondent received P80,000.00 from complainant for his legal services and as filing fees. He
however failed to file the necessary complaint and was never heard from again. He was thus suspended from the
practice of law for two years.
In Judge Angeles v. Atty. Uy, Jr.,38 therein respondent failed to promptly report that he received money on behalf of his
client. However, for lack of evidence of misappropriation, he was only suspended and not disbarred.
In Gonato v. Atty. Adaza,39 Atty. Adaza asked money from his client supposedly as filing fees when in fact no such
filing fees are needed or due. Worse, he issued a falsified official receipt as proof of payment. Finally, when he was
discovered, he failed to heed his clients demand to return the amount. For such infractions, Atty. Adaza was
suspended for a period of six months.
In Aquino v. Atty. Barcelona,40 Atty. Barcelona deliberately misrepresented to his client that he was able to
successfully facilitate the restructuring of his clients loan with a bank through his connection. On the basis of said
false pretenses, he collected P60,000.00 from his client. His client eventually became aware of such
misrepresentations when his property was foreclosed by the bank. Atty. Barcelona was thus charged with misconduct
and for which he was suspended by the Court for a period of six months.
The foregoing cases illustrate that the Court is not bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases of gross
misconduct and/or dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in
_______________
37 A.C. No. 7021, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 323.
38 386 Phil. 221; 330 SCRA 6 (2000).
39 385 Phil. 426; 328 SCRA 694 (2000).
40 431 Phil. 59; 381 SCRA 355 (2002)
365
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
365
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
the exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be more commensurate.41 Disbarment,
jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or
fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the
economic life and honor of the erring person.42 In this case, we believe that the penalty of suspension of four years
will provide Atty. Resurreccion with enough time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.43 While we will
not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we
will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.44 We note that there is no
mention in the records of any previous or similar administrative case filed against herein respondent.

Anent the issue of whether respondent should be directed to return the amount of P42,000.00 he received from the
complainant, we note that the rulings of this Court in this matter have been diverse. On one hand, there are cases
where this Court directed respondents to return the money they received from the complainants. On the other hand,
there are also cases where this Court refrained from venturing into this matter on the ground that the same is not within
the ambit of its disciplinary authority as the only issue in administrative cases is the fitness of the lawyer to remain a
member of the bar.
Now is the most opportune time to harmonize the Courts ruling on this matter. Thus, it is imperative to first determine
whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of
_______________
41 See Ducat, Jr. v. Atty. Villalon, Jr., 392 Phil. 394, 404-405; 337 SCRA 622, 628 (2000).
42 Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, A.C. No. 7820, September 12, 2008, 565 SCRA 9, 15-16.
43 Id.
44 Wilkie v. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008, 570 SCRA 1, 10.
366
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter involves violations of
the lawyers oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose
from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the
lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the
Courts disciplinary authority. Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to the mental and moral
fitness of the respondent to remain as member of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed to
return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within the Courts disciplinary authority.
In this case, respondent received the amount of P42,000.00 supposedly as payment for his legal services and as filing
fees. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
xxxx
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x
In this case, it is thus clear that respondent violated his lawyers oath and code of conduct when he withheld the amount
of P42,000.00 despite his failure to render the necessary legal services and after complainant demanded its return. He
must therefore be directed to return the same.
Finally, we emphasize that [t]he object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney
himself as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of offi367
VOL. 678, AUGUST 14, 2012
367
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
cers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose disregard for their oath of office [has] proved
them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar.45
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for four
years. He is also DIRECTED to return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00 within thirty (30) days from the
promulgation of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
their information and guidance. The Court Administrator is directed to circulate this Decision to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Reyes,
JJ., concur.
Sereno, J., On Official Leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., On Leave.
Respondent Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion suspended from practice of law for four (4) years.
Notes.A lawyers failure to return the clients money upon demand 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 clientit may
border on the criminal as it may constitute a certiorari case of swindling or estafa. (Belleza vs. Macasa, 593 SCRA 549
[2009]).
_______________
45 Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, supra note 20 at p. 340; p. 264, citation omitted.
368
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Anacta vs. Resurreccion
Possession of good moral character is not only a condition for admission to the Bar but is a continuing requirement to
maintain ones good standing in the legal profession. (Tiong vs. Florendo, 662 SCRA 1 [2011]).
o0o [Anacta vs. Resurreccion, 678 SCRA 352(2012)]