AC 11156; (March, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 11156. March 19, 2018.
Michelle Yap, Complainant, vs. Atty. Grace C. Buri, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Michelle Yap agreed to sell a condominium unit to respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri, a close friend, for a reduced price of ₱1,200,000.00. Yap transferred full possession upon receipt of ₱1,000,000.00, despite an unpaid balance of ₱200,000.00 and the absence of a formal deed. When Yap later demanded payment, Buri proposed unfavorable installment terms and, upon Yap’s refusal, threatened to cancel the sale and began sending threatening text messages.
Buri subsequently filed a criminal estafa case against Yap, falsely alleging that Yap canceled the sale and refused to return the ₱1,000,000.00 after Buri discovered the sale was made without spousal consent. The criminal case was dismissed. Yap then filed this administrative complaint. Buri failed to file an answer, attend the mandatory conference, or submit a position paper despite due notice.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Grace C. Buri should be held administratively liable for her conduct in relation to the transaction and the filing of a baseless criminal case.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Buri is administratively liable. The Supreme Court sustained the modified recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, suspending her from the practice of law for one year. The Court found that Buri’s strategy of threatening Yap and filing a groundless criminal case to avoid paying her just debt constituted a gross violation of professional ethics. Her actions demonstrated a lack of integrity, moral soundness, and a betrayal of public trust, as she weaponized her legal knowledge to intimidate and unjustly enrich herself.
Buri’s failure to participate in the administrative proceedings, despite notice, was deemed an implied admission of the charges. Her conduct violated the Lawyer’s Oath and specific canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). She breached Canon 1, Rule 1.01, by engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, by acting in a manner that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law. The deliberate failure to pay a just debt is gross misconduct warranting suspension. The Court upheld the IBP’s deletion of the order to pay the ₱200,000.00 balance, ruling that such civil liability must be pursued in a separate action, as disciplinary proceedings address only administrative liability.