AC 8383; (December, 2012) (Digest)
A.C. No. 8383, December 11, 2012
Amparo Bueno, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ramon A. Rañeses, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Amparo Bueno hired respondent Atty. Ramon Rañeses to represent her in a civil case. She paid a retainer fee and per-hearing allowances. Bueno alleged that in November 1988, Atty. Rañeses demanded and received P10,000 from her, claiming it would be divided with the presiding judge to ensure a favorable outcome. He instructed her to keep it secret. In December 1988, he demanded and received another P5,000, deeming the initial sum insufficient. Bueno sold personal property to raise these amounts. Later, she discovered the court had decided against her and that a sheriff came to execute the judgment in 1991. Atty. Rañeses had concealed the adverse decision and his failure to file required pleadings. In a separate affidavit, Bueno also stated that in June 1991, Atty. Rañeses asked her to relay a message to her aunt, Socorro Bello, to prepare P5,000 for a Justice of the Court of Appeals to influence an appealed criminal case. Bello later paid the amount to Atty. Rañeses in Bueno’s presence.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Ramon A. Rañeses should be disbarred for gross misconduct, specifically for soliciting money from his client under the pretext of bribing a judge and a justice.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Rañeses is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s conduct must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The act of soliciting money from a client to allegedly bribe a judge constitutes a severe violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. It corrupts the administration of justice and betrays the trust reposed in him by his client. Atty. Rañeses’s failure to file an answer to the complaint and his repeated non-appearance at the IBP hearings, despite due notice, were deemed an admission of the allegations. His actions demonstrated moral unfitness and a blatant disregard for judicial processes. The Court found the complainant’s detailed and consistent narration, corroborated by the separate incident involving her aunt, to be credible and sufficient to establish his guilt by clear preponderant evidence. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the legal system. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty to protect the public, preserve the integrity of the judiciary, and maintain the honor of the legal profession. The Court ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.