G.R. No. A.C. No. 1647 January 20, 1995
ELENA VDA. DE ECO, complainant, vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elena Vda. de Eco, an illiterate widow, filed an administrative case against Atty. Benjamin Ramirez, counsel for Communications Insurance Co., Inc. The complaint stemmed from a workmen’s compensation claim for the death of her husband. On January 15, 1976, during a visit to the insurance company’s office, Atty. Ramirez informed her the company was not liable but would give P650.00 as “limos” (charity). He had her thumbmark a blank paper, with her daughter signing as a witness, after instructing them to secure a residence certificate to receive the money.
Subsequently, on January 29, 1976, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission decided in Vda. de Eco’s favor, ordering the bakery and the insurance company to jointly pay P4,880.00. When a writ of execution was later pursued, Atty. Ramirez claimed the full P4,880.00 had already been paid to the complainant on January 15, 1976, presenting a receipt for that amount dated that day. The complainant denied receiving the full award.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Ramirez committed deceit by making it appear that complainant received the full compensation award of P4,880.00 on January 15, 1976, when she allegedly received only a smaller amount.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Atty. Benjamin Ramirez guilty of deceit and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The legal logic centered on the impossibility and inconsistency of the respondent’s claim. The Court adopted the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s finding that the receipt dated January 15, 1976, for the precise amount of P4,880.00 could not have been a genuine record of payment, as the Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s decision awarding that exact sum was only promulgated on January 29, 1976. It was logically untenable that the respondent or his client could have anticipated the specific award amount two weeks prior to its issuance.
The respondent’s failure to substantiate his defense by presenting crucial evidence—such as the actual receipt, proof of check encashment, or testimony from company personnel—further weakened his position. His actions constituted deceit, a violation of his oath as a lawyer and a gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Defrauding an illiterate claimant of a long-awaited death benefit was deemed a serious act that degraded the legal profession. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings cannot be dismissed merely due to a complainant’s loss of interest, especially when prima facie evidence exists, as was established here through the respondent’s own admissions and the documented chronology of events.