EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5054. May 29, 2002.]

SOLEDAD NUÑEZ, represented by ANANIAS B. CO, Attorney-in-Fact

for complainant , petitioner, vs . ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT , respondent.

Ananias B. Co, Jr. for complainant.

SYNOPSIS

This is an administrative complaint led by Soledad Nuñez, a septuagenarian

represented by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, seeking the disbarment of respondent.
It appeared that the complainant authorized the respondent to sell her two parcels of land
for a commission. However, after selling the lots he did not turn over the proceeds of the
sale despite complainant's repeated demands. This forced the complainant to le an
action for a sum of money against the respondent and his wife. Thereafter, the court
ordered respondent to pay his obligation to the complainant. The respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for non-payment of docket fee. In the
satisfaction of the writ of execution issued by the court, the respondent issued four
postdated checks, which were later dishonored because the account had been closed.
Again, because respondent ignored the repeated demands of the complainant to make
good the checks, four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were led against
him and his wife. Because of the failure of the respondent to comment on the complaint
against him, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP investigating commissioner
concluded that the respondent had no intention to honor the money judgment against him
and recommended that respondent be declared guilty of misconduct and be suspended
from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the amount of the checks issued to
the complainant.
The Supreme Court concurred with the ndings of the IBP that the respondent was
guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant. By violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent diminished public con dence in the
law and lawyers. The penalty of suspension imposed by the IBP was inadequate. For his
deliberate violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, coupled with his palpable bad faith and dishonesty in
his dealings with the complainant, respondent deserved a graver penalty. The graver
penalty is indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; VIOLATION

THEREOF DIMINISHES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN LAW AND LAWYERS; PRESENT IN CASE
AT BAR. — There is no need to stretch one's imagination to arrive at an inevitable
conclusion that respondent gravely abused the con dence that complainant reposed in
him and committed dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of her
property. Worse, with palpable bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go to court for
the recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the process, to spend money, time and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 energy therefor. Then, despite his deliberate failure to answer the complaint resulting in his
having been declared in default, he appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeals.
Again, bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay the docket fee despite
notice. Needless to state, respondent wanted to prolong the travails and energy and agony
of the complainant and to enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter.
Unsatis ed with what he had already unjustly and unlawfully done to complainant,
respondent issued checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant
of what he had done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay
complainant of what had been validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against him,
respondent closed the account against which the checks were drawn. There was deceit in
this. Respondent never had the intention of paying his obligation as proved by the fact that
despite the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he did not pay the obligation. All the
foregoing constituted grave and gross misconduct in blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A Lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. By violating Rule 1:01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent diminished public
con dence in the law and lawyers ( Busiños v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 [1997]; Ducat v.
Villalon, 337 SCRA 622 [2000]). Instead of promoting such con dence and respect, he
miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328
SCRA 694 [2000]; Ducat v. Villalon, supra).
2. ID.; ID.; LAWYERS ARE REQUIRED TO AVOID ANY ACTION THAT WOULD UNDULY
DELAY A CASE, IMPEDE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OR MISUSE COURT PROCESSES;
VIOLATION IN CASE AT BAR. — Respondent's act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of
t he alias writ of execution for money judgment rendered by the trial court was a clear
attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make good the checks despite
demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his continued
de ance of judicial processes, which he, as an o cer of the court, was under continuing
duty to uphold. To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and judicial
processes, respondent even had the temerity of making a mockery of our generosity to
him. We granted his three motions for extension of time to le his comment on the
complaint in this case. Yet, not only did he fail to le the comment, he as well did not even
bother to explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution declaring him as having
waived the ling of the comment. To the Highest Court of the land, respondent openly
showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful
orders (Thermochem Incorporated v. Naval, 344 SCRA 76, 82 [2000]; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty.
Baterina, Adm. Case No. 4073, 28 June 2001). Respondent then knowingly and willfully
violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which respectively provide that lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes; and that lawyers,
after obtaining extensions of time to le pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to
do so.
3. ID.; ID.; WHEN DELIBERATELY VIOLATED; PROPER PENALTY. — The penalty of
suspension "for at least one (1) year" imposed by the Board of Governors of the IBP is
both vague and inadequate. A suspension may either be inde nite or for a speci c
duration. Besides, under the circumstances of this case a suspension for a year is plainly
very light and inadequate. For his deliberate violation or de ance of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
and Rules 12:03 and 12:04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
coupled with his palpable bad faith and dishonesty in his dealings with the complainant,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent deserves a grave penalty. That graver penalty is inde nite suspension from the
practice of law.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM : p

This is an administrative complaint led on 21 April 1999 by Soledad Nuñez, a

septuagenarian represented by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave misconduct. SIDEaA

From the documents submitted by the complainant, it appears that sometime in

October 1982 she authorized respondent to sell her two parcels of land located in Legazpi
City for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price as commission.
Respondent succeeded in selling the lots, but despite complainant's repeated demands, he
did not turn over to her the proceeds of the sale. This forced complainant to le against
respondent and his wife an action for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-15052. DaACIH

For his failure to le an answer, respondent was declared in default and complainant
was required to present ex-parte her evidence. On 29 September 1993, the court rendered
its decision (Annex "C" of the Complaint) ordering respondent herein to pay complainant
the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the
date of the commencement of the action, i.e., 8 March 1993, until it is fully paid, and to pay
the costs of suit.
Respondent and his wife appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeals.
However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee within the
reglementary period despite notice.
On 23 October 1995 complainant led in Civil Case No. Q-93-15052 a motion for the
issuance of an alias writ of execution, which the court granted on 30 October 1995. The
next day, the alias writ of execution was issued (Annex "B" of Complaint). It appears that
only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800 thereof
unsatis ed. In payment for the latter, respondent issued four postdated checks drawn
against his account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City.
Upon presentment, however, the checks were dishonored because the account
against which they were drawn was closed (Annexes "D" and "E" of Complaint). Demands
for respondent to make good the checks fell on deaf ears, thus forcing complainant to le
four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City (Annexes "F", "G", "H" and "I" of the Complaint).
In the "Joint A davit" of respondent and his wife led with the O ce of the
Prosecutor, Quezon City, respondent admitted having drawn and issued said four
postdated checks in favor of complainant. Allegedly believing in good faith that said
checks had already been encashed by complainant, he subsequently closed his checking
account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City, from which said four checks were
drawn. He was not noti ed that the checks were dishonored. Had he been noti ed, he
would have made the necessary arrangements with the bank.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 We required respondent to comment on the complaint. But he never did despite our
favorable action on his three motions for extension of time to le the comment. His failure
to do so compelled complainant to le on 10 March 2000 a motion to cite respondent in
contempt on the ground that his strategy to le piecemeal motions for extension of time
to submit the comment "smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy of a member
of the bar and a law dean."
In our resolution of 14 June 2000, we noted the motion for contempt; considered
respondent to have waived the ling of a comment; and referred this case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or
decision within ninety days from notice of the resolution.
In her Report and Recommendation dated 12 September 2000, Investigating
Commissioner Atty. Milagros V. San Juan concluded that respondent had no intention to
"honor" the money judgment against him in Civil Case No. Q-93-15052 as can be gleaned
from his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account against which said
checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to make good the amounts of the checks.
She then recommends that respondent be declared "guilty of misconduct in his dealings
with complainant" and be suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay
the amount of the checks issued to the complainant.
In its Resolution No. XV-2001-244 of 27 October 2001, the Board of Governors of
the IBP approved and adopted Atty. San Juan's Report and Recommendation.
We concur with the ndings of the Investigating Commissioner, as adopted and
approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP, that respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is
guilty of grave misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Indeed, the record shows
respondent's grave misconduct and notorious dishonesty.
There is no need to stretch one's imagination to arrive at an inevitable conclusion
that respondent gravely abused the con dence that complainant reposed in him and
committed dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of her property.
Worse, with palpable bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go to court for the
recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the process, to spend money, time and energy
therefor. Then, despite his deliberate failure to answer the complaint resulting in his having
been declared in default, he appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeals. Again,
bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay the docket fee despite notice.
Needless to state, respondent wanted to prolong the travails and agony of the
complainant and to enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter. Unsatis ed with
what he had already unjustly and unlawfully done to complainant, respondent issued
checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant of what he had
done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay complainant of what
had been validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against him, respondent closed the
account against which the checks were drawn. There was deceit in this. Respondent never
had the intention of paying his obligation as proved by the fact that despite the criminal
cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he did not pay the obligation.
All the foregoing constituted grave and gross misconduct in blatant violation of Rule
1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
conduct.

Respondent's claim of good faith in closing his account because he thought

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complainant has already encashed all checks is preposterous. The account was closed on
or before 26 February 1996. He knew that there were still other checks due on 29 February
1996 and 15 March 1996 which could not be encashed before their maturity dates.
By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
respondent diminished public con dence in the law and the lawyers ( Busiños v. Ricafort ,
283 SCRA 407 [1997]; Ducat v. Villalon , 337 SCRA 622 [2000]). Instead of promoting such
con dence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal
profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694 [2000]; Ducat v. Villalon, supra).
Respondent's act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of execution
for money judgment rendered by the trial court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of
justice. His failure to make good the checks despite demands and the criminal cases for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his continued de ance of judicial processes, which he, as
an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to uphold.
To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and judicial processes,
respondent even had the temerity of making a mockery of our generosity to him. We
granted his three motions for extension of time to le his comment on the complaint in
this case. Yet, not only did he fail to le the comment, he as well did not even bother to
explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution declaring him as having waived the
ling of the comment. To the Highest Court of the land, respondent openly showed a high
degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful disobedience to its lawful orders
(Thermochem Incorporated v. Naval, 344 SCRA 76, 82 [2000]; Sipin-Nabor v. Atty. Baterina ,
Adm. Case No. 4073, 28 June 2001).
Respondent then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12:04 and 12:03 of Canon 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide that lawyers should
avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to le
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so.
The penalty of suspension "for at least one (1) year" imposed by the Board of
Governors of the IBP is both vague and inadequate. A suspension may either be inde nite
or for a specific duration. Besides, under the circumstances of this case a suspension for a
year is plainly very light and inadequate. For his deliberate violation or de ance of Rule 1:01
of Canon 1 and Rules 12:03 and 12:04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, coupled with his palpable bad faith and dishonesty in his dealings with the
complainant, respondent deserves a graver penalty. That graver penalty is inde nite
suspension from the practice of law.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is hereby
INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law, and is directed to pay complainant
Soledad Nuñez the amount of P13,800 within ten (10) days from notice of this resolution.
cCaSHA

This resolution shall take effect immediately. Copies thereof shall be furnished the
O ce of the Bar Con dant, to be appended to respondent's personal record; the O ce of
the President; the Department of Justice; the Court of Appeals; the Sandiganbayan; and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court Administrator shall also furnish all lower
courts with copies of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez
and Corona, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com