G.R. No. A.C. No. 11118 (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2140), July 14, 2020
Nenita Ko, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ladimir Ian G. Maduramente and Atty. Mercy Grace L. Maduramente, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Nenita Ko filed a disbarment petition against respondents, spouses Atty. Ladimir Ian G. Maduramente and Atty. Mercy Grace L. Maduramente, for dishonest acts and grave misconduct. In July 2006, the respondents persuaded Nenita to purchase the Manila Prince Hotel for P50,000,000.00, making several representations, including their connections with the hotel’s owners, the reasonableness of the price, the hotel’s operational readiness, and an installment payment scheme. They also represented that Nenita would only pay P32,000,000.00 as they would cover the balance as industrial partners. Convinced, Nenita issued three checks totaling P17,000,000.00 payable to Atty. Mercy, who executed an Acknowledgment. Upon inquiry, Nenita discovered no sale transaction had been concluded. The respondents failed to produce sale documents, and Atty. Mercy berated Nenita and boasted of her connections to dissuade a complaint. Nenita retrieved two uncashed checks. The first check for P5,000,000.00 had been encashed, which respondents admitted using. They later returned P500,000.00, and Atty. Ladimir executed a Deed of Undertaking to pay the remaining P4,500,000.00, with a P500,000.00 bank transfer and a P4,000,000.00 check. The check was dishonored due to a closed account. Despite a final demand, the P4,000,000.00 remained unpaid. In their Answers, the respondents gave conflicting stories: Atty. Mercy denied the hotel sale claim, stating she offered shares of stock and did not encash the check, while Atty. Ladimir claimed it was Atty. Mercy’s transaction and he was not involved, though he later issued the bouncing check to pacify Nenita. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Mercy guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct, recommending a two-year suspension, and dismissed the case against Atty. Ladimir. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this resolution. Atty. Mercy’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She later filed a Petition for Review, alleging new evidence (a bank certification) showing she did not endorse or deposit the P5,000,000.00 check, which was actually issued by Nenita’s husband.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Ladimir Ian G. Maduramente and Atty. Mercy Grace L. Maduramente violated the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found both respondents guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath. The Court modified the IBP’s resolution. The respondents’ conflicting and evasive defenses, coupled with the established facts—the solicitation of funds based on false representations, the encashment and failure to account for the P5,000,000.00, the issuance of a worthless check for P4,000,000.00, and their failure to return the money despite demands—demonstrate deceit, malpractice, and conduct unbecoming of attorneys. Their acts eroded public confidence in the legal profession. The defense of Atty. Mercy regarding the check’s endorsement was immaterial as she admitted receiving and holding the checks in trust. The conjugal partnership presumption applied to the benefits received from the transaction involving both spouses. Both lawyers betrayed the trust reposed in them. Atty. Mercy Grace L. Maduramente and Atty. Ladimir Ian G. Maduramente were DISBARRED from the practice of law. Their names were ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. They were also ORDERED to jointly return to Nenita Ko the amount of P4,000,000.00, with 6% interest per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.