AC 11477; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 11477, January 19, 2021
Jaime Ignacio D. Bernasconi, Complainant, vs. Atty. Belleza A. Demaisip, Respondent.
FACTS
In 2008, complainant Jaime Ignacio D. Bernasconi engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Belleza A. Demaisip for the transfer of ownership of a parcel of land. Atty. Demaisip estimated the cost at P2,960,000.00, which Bernasconi paid. However, she failed to deliver the transfer certificate of title. Upon demand, she provided a liquidation of expenses amounting to P512,000.00 and refunded P810,000.00, leaving an unaccounted balance of P1,638,000.00. Atty. Demaisip issued a check for this amount, but it was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. She also executed promissory notes to pay the balance but failed to do so. Bernasconi filed criminal complaints for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22, as well as this administrative complaint. Atty. Demaisip claimed the amount was insufficient for the transfer and that Bernasconi owed her attorney’s fees, but she raised this argument only in her Position Paper. Bernasconi later withdrew his complaint, citing a misunderstanding, but the proceedings continued.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Belleza A. Demaisip violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of Canon 16, by failing to account for and return client funds and by issuing a dishonored check.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Demaisip is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court sustained the recommendations of the IBP-CBD and OBC, suspending her from the practice of law for two years. The Court held that:
1. Violation of Canon 16 (Trust Funds): Atty. Demaisip breached her fiduciary duty by failing to account for and return the unspent balance of P1,638,000.00 upon demand, violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03. Her claim of unpaid attorney’s fees was an afterthought and unsupported, as she had already charged partial fees in her liquidation.
2. Violation of Rule 1.01 (Unlawful/Dishonest Conduct): Issuing a dishonored check constituted willful dishonesty and immoral conduct, undermining public confidence in the legal profession, regardless of the outcome of the criminal cases.
3. Effect of Complaint Withdrawal: Bernasconi’s desistance did not exonerate Atty. Demaisip, as disciplinary proceedings serve public interest and are not dependent on the complainant’s private grievance.
The penalty of two-year suspension was deemed appropriate due to the substantial amount involved, her failure to account for client funds, and the aggravating act of issuing a worthless check. A warning was issued against repetition of similar acts.