G.R. No. A.C. No. 13675. July 11, 2023
Mary Rose E. Dizon, Randolph Stephen G. Pleyto, and Jonash Belgrade C. Tabanda, Complainants, vs. Maila Leilani Trinidad-Radoc, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, young entrepreneurs, engaged the services of Atty. Maila Leilani Trinidad-Radoc concerning a lease contract dispute with Spouses Nemesio Peralta, Jr. On November 11, 2016, she requested and received ₱100,000 as acceptance and “filing fee.” She later demanded additional payments for an “attachment case” (₱98,000), a Bureau of Immigration complaint, and “Claims and Damages Fees” (totaling ₱300,000), falsely representing that she had filed these actions and that complainants had won a ₱5 million judgment award which was being processed. Complainants discovered no cases were filed when they checked the Quezon City Hall of Justice portal and their bank. On June 23, 2017, Atty. Trinidad-Radoc confessed to the fraud and executed a handwritten Undertaking to return the total ₱450,000 she received but failed to do so. A Certification from the Clerk of Court confirmed no civil case was filed. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found her guilty of violating Canons 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended a three-year suspension and fines for procedural non-compliance.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Maila Leilani Trinidad-Radoc is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (and subsequently, the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability).

RULING

Yes, Atty. Trinidad-Radoc is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of her professional duties. The Court affirmed the IBP’s factual findings but modified the penalty. Applying the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), the Court found her actions constituted flagrant violations of Canons I (Independence and Integrity), IV (Competence and Diligence), and V (Fidelity). She betrayed her clients’ trust by fabricating legal actions, misappropriating ₱450,000 in funds, and failing to render any actual legal service. Her deceitful conduct, failure to account for the money, and disregard of IBP proceedings demonstrated a lack of the honesty, integrity, and fidelity required of a lawyer. Considering the presence of aggravating circumstances (misrepresentation, abuse of confidence, refusal to return money, and indifference to disciplinary authority) and absence of mitigation, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of DISBARMENT. She was also ORDERED to RETURN to complainants the amount of ₱450,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.