GAVINO & FLORDELIZA TOLENTINO vs. ATTY. HENRY SO & ATTY.

FERDINAN
D ANCHETA
A.C. No. 6387, July 19, 2016, 797 SCRA 106

FACTS: Flordeliza was a defendant in a civil case before the RTC inv
olving recovery of possession of a parcel of land, which was rendered
against Flordeliza ordering her to vacate the land.

The case was appealed to the CA. While the appeal is pending, Fl
ordeliza’s counsel was replaced by Atty. Henry So.

Spouses Flordeliza learned that the CA affirmed the RTC decision. A

tty. Henry So did not inform them nor take the necessary action to
elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Thus, they were compelled to take the services of Atty. Ancheta. T

he latter promised them that there was still a remedy that he will fil
e a motion to reopen appeal case and asked P200,000 to bribe the
CA justices.

Spouses Flordeliza learned that no such motion was filed by Atty.

Ancheta and the CA decision had been final and executory.

Spouses Flordeliza sought to recover the money from Atty. Ancheta b

ut to no avail. On the other hand, Atty. Henry So answered explaining
that he had departed from the law office while the case is pendin
g at CA and moved to Western Samar.

Atty. Ancheta failed to follow order of the Commission on Bar Discipl

ine (CBD) requiring his attendance and presence in the hearing. He d
id not file any pleading.

ISSUES
1) Whether Atty. Henry So is guilty of negligence for failure to in
form the spouses of the status of the case.

2) Whether Atty. Ancheta defrauded the spouses.

RULINGS
 1) NO, Atty. Henry So is not guilty of negligence.

The serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow

only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence of Atty. Henry
So’s misconduct affecting her standing and moral character as an officer
of the Court and member of the bar.

Atty. Henry So’s omission is not of such gravity that would warran
t his disbarment or suspension.

2) YES. Atty. Ancheta is guilty of defrauding the spouses.

Any member of the bar who fails to live up to the standards of

integrity and morality exposes himself to administrative liability.

Atty. Ancheta’s act of asking for money from the spouses Flordeliza,
to be used as bribe for the justices of the CA, is clearly an
act which shows his lack of integrity in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He is disbarred.