Asuncion v. Salvado, A.C. No. 13242, July 5, 2022.

FACTS:

On November 23, 2013, the complainant sought legal assistance from the respondent regarding the
annulment of his mother's previous marriage. The respondent charged a total legal fee of P700,000.
They agreed that the complainant would pay 50% upfront, amounting to P350,000. The respondent
promised to contact officials from the National Statistics Office (NSO) to prepare the necessary
documents and secure a favorable judgment within two months. The complainant made several
payments to the respondent, including P70,000 on November 23, 2013, P50,000 on December 4, 2013,
P200,000 on January 7, 2014, and P100,000 on February 4, 2014, totaling P420,000. When the
complainant asked for an update on the case, the respondent became angry and made derogatory
remarks. The respondent failed to deliver the requested NSO documents and stopped going to his office
and ignoring the complainant's calls. The complainant received a call from the respondent asking for one
week to return the amount received, but the respondent never contacted him again.

The complainant submitted receipts issued by the respondent, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the complainant's mother and the respondent, and screenshots of their text messages as
evidence.
The case proceeded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Board of
Governors ordered the respondent to file an answer, but the respondent did not comply. The
Investigating Commissioner sent notices of mandatory conferences to both parties, but the respondent
failed to appear on multiple occasions.
Ultimately, neither party filed a position paper, and the proceedings were terminated due to the parties'
non-compliance.

In the Report and Recommendation dated May 29, 2017, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
recommended that the respondent be found guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) due to his infidelity and negligence in handling
his client's concerns. The Commissioner further recommended that the respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for five years.

The Commissioner found that the respondent failed to deliver the requested documents despite
receiving an aggregate amount of P350,000. The respondent claimed that the complainant failed to pay
the full amount, but the text conversation between the parties indicated that the balance was indeed
received by the respondent on February 4, 2014.

The Commissioner also noted that the respondent had been involved in similar cases before, such as the
Ereneta case and Aca case, where he was found guilty of violating the CPR.

In the Resolution dated September 7, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's
Report and Recommendation and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for five years.

The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on December 9, 2019, stating that he did not receive
the orders and notices in the present case due to an incorrect address. He argued that he did not receive
the balance of P350,000, and he questioned the authenticity of the screenshots of text messages as
evidence. He also mentioned that he had settled his obligations in the Ereneta case and claimed that the
dishonor in the Aca case was unintentional and due to failed lending transactions. Lastly, he stated that
the complainant was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
In the Resolution dated March 27, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors denied the respondent's motion for
reconsideration, stating that there were no new reasons or arguments presented to reverse the
previous resolution.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado should be disbarred from the practice of law due to his
violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

2. Whether or not the text messages exchanged between Atty. Salvado and Mr. Asuncion were
admissible as evidence.

RULING:

1. Yes, The Court found Atty. Salvado guilty of violating several provisions of the CPR, including the
Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1 (upholding the Constitution and obeying the laws), Rules 1.01 and 1.02
(prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct), Canon 13 (relying on the merits of a
cause and refraining from impropriety that influences the court), Rule 15.06 (prohibiting lawyers from
stating or implying influence over public officials or tribunals), Canons 17 and 18 (duty of fidelity,
competence, and diligence towards clients), and Rule 18.04 (keeping clients informed of case status and
promptly responding to requests for information).

The Court's decision was based on various pieces of evidence, including text messages exchanged
between Atty. Salvado and the complainant, Roger D. Asuncion. These text messages revealed Atty.
Salvado's promise to deliver a favorable judgment annulling a marriage through his connections within
two months. It was clear that Atty. Salvado planned to use his connections instead of relying on his legal
skills, thus violating the prohibition against influence peddling.

Additionally, Atty. Salvado failed to deliver the promised decree/decision of annulment, kept the
complainant uninformed about the status of the case, and issued a check that was dishonored due to
insufficient funds. These actions demonstrated his lack of fidelity, competence, and diligence towards
his client.

Considering the gravity of the violations and Atty. Salvado's past disciplinary records, the Court imposed
the penalty of disbarment. Atty. Salvado's name was ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys,
effective immediately. He was also directed to return the amount paid by the complainant within 10
days, with interest, and provide proof of payment.

The decision in Asuncion v. Salvado serves as a reminder that lawyers must uphold the Lawyer's Oath,
abide by the laws and ethical standards, and faithfully serve their clients with competence and diligence.
Failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary consequences, such as disbarment.

2. Yes, the Court held that the text messages were admissible as evidence under the "best evidence
rule." The Court explained that the rule requires the production of the original writing or recording
whenever the contents of a writing or recording are sought to be proved. However, the rule allows for
the admission of secondary evidence, such as copies, if the original is lost or destroyed, or if it is in the
custody or control of the adverse party.
In this case, the text messages were not the original writings, but they were copies of the messages
stored in the cellular phones of both parties. The Court held that the copies of the text messages were
admissible as evidence because the original messages were not available and the copies were in the
custody and control of the parties. The Court noted that the authenticity of the messages was not
disputed and that they were relevant to the issues in the case.