A.C. No. 12296. December 04, 2018
Pia Marie B. Go, Complainant, vs. Atty. Grace C. Buri, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pia Marie B. Go engaged the services of respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri in September 2012 to handle her marriage annulment. She paid a “package engagement fee” of P150,000 on January 17, 2013. Complainant was informed a petition was filed but received no copy. In February 2013, she asked to hold the case, and respondent claimed to have withdrawn the petition. In February 2015, complainant decided to proceed and contacted respondent, who then requested an additional P38,000 for re-filing, which complainant paid. Complainant repeatedly demanded copies of the petitions and receipts to no avail.
Becoming suspicious, complainant verified with the Regional Trial Court and discovered no annulment petition had ever been filed on her behalf. Confronted, respondent promised to file but continuously failed. Complainant demanded a refund of the total P188,000 paid. Respondent promised to return half but failed. This prompted the administrative complaint. During IBP proceedings, respondent failed to appear, file an answer, or comply with directives despite due notice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for her actions in handling the complainant’s case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent violated multiple canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Her failure to file the contracted petition for annulment, despite receiving payment and giving assurances, constitutes neglect of a legal matter entrusted to her, a clear violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which mandates a lawyer to serve a client with competence and diligence.
Furthermore, respondent’s misrepresentations—falsely claiming to have filed and withdrawn a petition, and later claiming to need a re-filing fee—constitute dishonesty and deceit. This violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 15, which requires a lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty. Her failure to issue receipts for the payments also contravenes professional norms. Her disregard of IBP directives compounds her liability.
Applying jurisprudence, the Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ modified resolution. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years. She was ordered to return the P188,000 to complainant within ninety days and to pay a P5,000 fine for non-compliance with IBP orders. The Court warned that repetition of similar acts would warrant a more severe penalty.