G.R. No. A.C. 6387. July 19, 2016.
Gabino V. Tolentino and Flordeliza C. Tolentino, Complainants vs. Atty. Henry B. So and Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Flordeliza Tolentino was the defendant in a civil case for recovery of possession. After the Regional Trial Court ruled against her, her counsel, Atty. Edilberto Coronado, appealed to the Court of Appeals. Atty. Coronado was later replaced by respondent Atty. Henry So, a lawyer from the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA). The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Complainants alleged that Atty. So failed to inform them of this adverse decision and did not take steps to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. They then engaged the services of respondent Atty. Ferdinand Ancheta, paying him an acceptance fee of ₱30,000. Atty. Ancheta promised to file a “motion to reopen appeal case” and later convinced complainants to deposit ₱200,000 into his bank account, purportedly to bribe the Court of Appeals Justices. Complainants later discovered no motion was filed and the decision had become final. They demanded the return of the money to no avail. Atty. So countered that he had resigned from BALA in 1997, four years before the CA decision, and that his cases were reassigned to other bureau lawyers. Atty. Ancheta did not file any comment despite notices.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Henry So and Atty. Ferdinand Ancheta should be administratively disciplined for their respective acts.

RULING

The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors.
1. As to Atty. Henry So: He was absolved of the charge of negligence. The Court found that he handled the appeal in his capacity as a BALA lawyer and had resigned in 1997, long before the CA decision in 2001. Upon his resignation, the bureau reassigned his cases. While it would have been prudent for him to inform the clients of his resignation, his omission did not constitute gross negligence warranting disbarment or suspension. Furthermore, complainants were not entirely blameless, as they had ample time to follow up on their case and engage new counsel.
2. As to Atty. Ferdinand Ancheta: He was found guilty of gross misconduct and deceit. His failure to comply with the Court’s orders to comment constituted a tacit admission of the allegations. The evidence established that he accepted a fee for a case he knew was futile, deceived complainants into giving him ₱200,000 for a purported bribe, and failed to render any legal service or return the money. His actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1 (upholding the integrity of the legal profession) and Rule 1.01 (prohibiting dishonest or deceitful conduct) and Rule 1.02 (prohibiting activities aimed at defiance of the law). Atty. Ancheta was DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.