AC 13242; (July, 2022) (Digest)
A.C. No. 13242. July 05, 2022. Roger D. Asuncion, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Roger D. Asuncion engaged the legal services of Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado in November 2013 to handle the annulment of his mother’s previous marriage. They executed a Memorandum of Agreement stipulating a total legal fee of P700,000.00, with an initial 50% payment of P350,000.00. Complainant paid a total of P420,000.00 across several installments. Respondent allegedly promised to contact officials from the National Statistics Office (NSO) to secure necessary documents and obtain a favorable judgment within two months.
Despite repeated follow-ups, respondent failed to deliver any documents or provide substantive updates on the case. Complainant alleged that respondent became irate when asked for updates, eventually ceased communication, and failed to return the money as later promised. Respondent ignored all notices from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and did not file an answer or attend mandatory conferences, leading the investigation to proceed ex parte.
ISSUE
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of multiple violations of the CPR and disbarred him. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s fiduciary duty demands the highest degree of fidelity and good faith. Respondent’s failure to perform the agreed-upon service, despite receiving substantial payment, constituted gross negligence and a blatant violation of Canon 17 (fidelity to client’s cause) and Rules 18.03 (neglect of a legal matter) and 18.04 (duty to inform client) of Canon 18.
Furthermore, the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, wherein respondent promised to deliver documents showing a dissolved marriage for a fixed fee, implied an undertaking to influence public officials or secure a specific result, which is prohibited under Rule 15.06 of Canon 15. This arrangement was tantamount to guaranteeing a favorable outcome, a serious ethical breach. Respondent’s repeated failure to participate in the IBP proceedings demonstrated contempt for the judicial process and was considered an admission of the charges. His pattern of misconduct, evidenced by previous suspensions in other administrative cases, confirmed his unfitness to practice law. Consequently, the Court ordered his disbarment, with his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.