G.R. No. A.C. No. 11495 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5466). February 21, 2023.
Norma F. Flores and Mark Sherwin F. Flores, Complainants, vs. Atty. William F. Delos Santos, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mark Sherwin F. Flores was convicted for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 . His mother, Norma F. Flores, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos to handle the appeal. Atty. Delos Santos initially received ₱25,000.00 and eventually collected a total of ₱77,500.00. Subsequently, Atty. Delos Santos persuaded Norma to produce an additional ₱160,000.00, which he claimed was to be used to bribe the Justices of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals to secure a favorable judgment for her son. Relying on this guarantee, Norma borrowed money and deposited the total ₱160,000.00 into the bank account of Atty. Delos Santos’s wife. The Court of Appeals later affirmed Mark’s conviction, and Norma discovered that Atty. Delos Santos had also failed to file an Appellant’s Reply Brief as committed. When confronted, he promised to return the money but failed to do so. The complainants filed a disciplinary case accusing Atty. Delos Santos of dishonest and deceitful conduct, gross neglect of duty, and rendering illegal advice. Atty. Delos Santos failed to file his comment on the complaint despite notice from the Court.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. William F. Delos Santos is guilty of gross misconduct warranting his disbarment from the practice of law.

RULING

Yes, Atty. William F. Delos Santos is guilty of gross misconduct. The Court found that his actions constituted willful gross misconduct. His failure to comply with the Court’s order to comment on the complaint lent credence to the allegations and manifested disrespect for lawful orders. On the merits, the Court held that the complainants substantiated their allegations with substantial evidence, primarily through Norma’s affidavit and the corresponding bank deposit slips. Atty. Delos Santos’s defense of mere denial was deemed weak and unsubstantiated. By deliberately misleading his client into believing he could bribe justices, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, cast doubt on the integrity of the legal system, eroded public confidence in the judiciary, and brought dishonor to the legal profession. This violated multiple Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Rule 10.01, Canon 13, and Rule 15.06. His negligence in failing to file the required brief and to keep his client informed further demonstrated his unfitness for the legal profession. Considering his previous suspension in another case as an aggravating circumstance, the Court imposed the penalty of disbarment. He was also ordered to return the amount of ₱160,000.00 to the complainants with legal interest at 6% per annum from receipt of the decision until full payment.