AC 10187; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 10187; July 22, 2015
CELINA F. ANDRADA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO CERA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Celina F. Andrada hired respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera in late 2009 to represent her in an annulment case. To file the case, she needed NSO copies of her children’s birth certificates, which were unregistered. She gave respondent ₱1,000 to process these certificates and, through a friend, ₱10,000 as advance payment for psychological tests for herself and her children. In July 2010, complainant discovered that respondent had not filed the NSO applications or paid for the certificates, despite his assurances. On May 29, 2011, complainant demanded the surrender of the NSO receipt and return of the ₱10,000. Respondent refused, prompting the filing of this administrative complaint on June 7, 2011, alleging deceitful and negligent conduct, including failure to secure documents, provide a psychologist, and attend hearings, causing delay and forcing refiling of the annulment case. Respondent failed to appear at IBP-CBD proceedings or submit an answer. In April 2012, pursuant to a compromise agreement for a related estafa case, respondent returned ₱17,280 to complainant but did not fulfill his obligation to secure the birth certificates.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera violated the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility through unlawful, dishonest, immoral, deceitful, and negligent conduct in handling complainant’s case and misappropriating client funds.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The IBP Board of Governors found respondent violated Canon 1 (Rule 1.01) by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 18 (Rule 18.03) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. He also violated Canon 16 by misappropriating client funds and failing to deliver them upon demand. His negligence included lying about processing birth certificates, failing to provide psychological tests, and causing delays. His restitution of funds under threat of criminal liability does not mitigate liability. The Supreme Court sustained the IBP’s recommendation, suspending respondent from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, with a warning against repetition.