AC 12475; (March, 2019) (Digest)
A.C. No. 12475. March 26, 2019. ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, Complainant vs. ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rosalie Domingo engaged respondent Atty. Jorge Sacdalan to recover possession of land. She paid him an acceptance fee of ₱75,000 and a litigation expense deposit of ₱50,000. Respondent later requested and received an additional ₱100,000 as a cash advance against future fees, citing his wife’s hospitalization. Complainant instructed him to file an ejectment case after failed barangay conciliation. Respondent sent her a copy of a complaint bearing a court receiving stamp and docket number, but upon her direct inquiry, the Municipal Trial Court confirmed no such case was filed. Respondent blamed his staff’s mistake. A complaint was eventually filed but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Complainant terminated the engagement and demanded the return of the ₱50,000 deposit and the ₱100,000 cash advance, but respondent failed to comply.
ISSUE
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Sacdalan. The legal logic is grounded on multiple, aggravated violations of his duties. First, by presenting a fabricated court document with a fake stamp and docket number to mislead his client about the case status, he committed dishonesty and deceit in violation of Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest conduct). Second, his failure to return the ₱50,000 deposit upon termination of services, without proving any expenses were incurred, violated Rule 16.04 (requiring the return of unspent advances). Third, his failure to repay the ₱100,000 cash advance, which the Court treated as a demandable loan from a client, breached Rule 18.04 (prohibiting borrowing money from a client unless the client’s interests are fully protected). His defenses—blaming his staff and erratic internet—were untenable; a lawyer bears personal responsibility for case management and client communication. His pattern of deceit, misuse of client funds, and disregard for IBP proceedings demonstrated a lack of the integrity required to remain a member of the Bar. The Court ordered him to return the total ₱150,000 with interest and pay a ₱5,000 fine for disobedience to the IBP.