AC 11978; (September, 2018) (Digest)
A.C. No. 11978. September 25, 2018. KENNETH R. MARIANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE N. LAKI, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Kenneth R. Mariano engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Jose N. Laki for a petition for annulment of marriage. Atty. Laki demanded a total fee of P160,000.00, assuring Mariano he could secure a favorable decision without the latter’s personal appearance by filing the case before a “friendly judge” in the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac. Relying on these assurances, Mariano made full payment of P150,000.00 in three installments between January and August 2009, as evidenced by receipts. After nearly a year of follow-ups, Mariano discovered the petition had never been filed. Atty. Laki offered various excuses, including the alleged dismissal of the “friendly judge,” and promised to return the money but failed to do so. Mariano’s subsequent demands and a formal demand letter sent via the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) were ignored.
During the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) proceedings, Atty. Laki exhibited willful disobedience. He failed to file his required Answer despite multiple orders and notices. He repeatedly sought postponements of mandatory conferences for various reasons, including illness and conflicting hearings, and was often absent despite warnings from the Commission. His eventual participation was minimal and did not include filing a substantive Answer to the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Jose N. Laki should be disbarred for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and willful disobedience of lawful orders from the IBP-CBD.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Laki. The legal logic is twofold. First, Atty. Laki committed gross misconduct by accepting a substantial fee under false pretenses and failing to perform the contracted legal service. His representation that he could influence a “friendly judge” constituted a serious betrayal of public trust and an attempt to undermine the integrity of the judiciary, which is reprehensible and violates the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This act alone demonstrates moral unfitness to remain a member of the Bar.
Second, his procedural defiance before the IBP-CBD constituted willful disobedience of lawful orders, which is separately punishable by disbarment. The Court emphasized that the disciplinary authority of the IBP is an extension of the Supreme Court’s exclusive power to regulate the legal profession. A lawyer’s disregard for the orders and processes of the IBP-CBD is a direct affront to judicial authority and exhibits a contemptuous attitude that justifies severe sanction. His failure to file an Answer and his repeated, unjustified non-appearance at hearings, despite clear warnings, demonstrated a pattern of disrespect for the disciplinary machinery. The confluence of substantive misconduct (deceiving a client and the court) and procedural contumacy warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court also ordered him to return the P150,000.00 fee with legal interest to Mariano.