AC 1037; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 1037 December 14, 1998
Victoriano P. Resurreccion, complainant, vs. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Victoriano P. Resurreccion was involved in a vehicular accident on May 13, 1970, resulting in the death of Armando Basto Jr. He was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence. The case was amicably settled on August 8, 1970, wherein Resurreccion agreed to pay P2,500 to the victim’s father, Armando Basto Sr., represented by his counsel, respondent Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson. Resurreccion delivered the P2,500 to Sayson, who acknowledged receipt in writing and assured him it would be given to his client. However, Sayson failed to deliver the money to Basto Sr., compelling Resurreccion to pay another P2,500 directly to the heirs to secure the dismissal of the case. Despite repeated demands, Sayson did not return the money. Resurreccion filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Sayson, resulting in a conviction by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on September 20, 1973, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and upheld by the Supreme Court. Resurreccion also filed this administrative complaint for disbarment against Sayson for malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of his lawyer’s oath. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case, and Sayson failed to appear or controvert the allegations. The IBP Board of Governors recommended disbarment.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson should be disbarred for misappropriating settlement funds, constituting deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath as a lawyer.
RULING
Yes, respondent Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson is disbarred. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Sayson’s conviction for estafa, a crime involving moral turpitude, demonstrates his unfitness to remain a member of the legal profession. His act of misappropriating the P2,500 settlement money entrusted to him for his client constitutes deceit, gross misconduct, and a breach of his duties as a lawyer. The Court emphasized that good moral character is essential for continued practice of law, and Sayson’s actions violated justice, honesty, and good morals. Disbarment is warranted as a lesser penalty would be insufficient given the gravity of the misconduct. His name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.