AC 2112; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 2112 May 30, 1983
REMEDIOS MUNAR, complainant vs. ATTY. ERNESTO B. FLORES, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Remedios Munar filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto B. Flores, alleging deceit and fraud. Munar, facing an ejectment suit, was induced by Flores to deliver P5,863.00 to cover purported filing fees and expenses for a separate action he promised to file in the Court of First Instance to stop the ejectment. Flores, who had volunteered his services, never filed the promised suit. Despite repeated demands, he failed to return the money and became unreachable, leading Munar to believe he had absconded with the funds.
During the investigation by the Solicitor General, Munar executed an affidavit of desistance after Flores returned P6,300.00, expressing her forgiveness and desire to withdraw the complaint. Flores admitted receiving the money and not filing the suit, claiming he informed Munar of his decision via a letter and denying receipt of her demand letter as he was away. He submitted the case for resolution without presenting further evidence.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Ernesto B. Flores should be disciplined for professional misconduct involving deceit, misrepresentation, and failure to account for client funds.
RULING
Yes, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six months. The Court emphasized that disbarment proceedings are of public interest and are not terminated by a complainant’s withdrawal or forgiveness. The facts established that Flores obtained money from Munar under the false pretense of filing a suit, which he never did, and then failed to return the funds promptly, necessitating frantic efforts by Munar to locate him. His defense—an unproven letter and absence from home—only reinforced the finding of deceitful conduct and misrepresentation.
The Court found the Solicitor General’s recommendation for a six-month suspension appropriate, considering it was Flores’s first offense, his submission to the Court’s resolution, his expressions of remorse, and the restitution made. However, the penalty was imposed to uphold the integrity of the legal profession, with a stern warning that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. The period of his preventive suspension during the case’s pendency was not credited against this penalty.