G.R. No. 107984 September 29, 1999
GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL, INC., complainant, vs. ATTY. PRIMO R. NALDOZA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. filed a disbarment petition against its counsel, Atty. Primo R. Naldoza. The allegations stemmed from respondent’s handling of POEA Case No. 8888-06-468. After an adverse decision became final and executory, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to appeal to the Supreme Court. Respondent then obtained US$2,555 from complainant, misrepresenting it as a “cash bond” required by the Supreme Court for the appeal. He later presented a spurious Supreme Court receipt to conceal this act. Verification revealed only P622.00 in legal fees were paid. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming it was complainant who insisted on the appeal to delay execution and that he did not ask for a cash bond or issue a fake receipt. A criminal case for estafa based on the same facts was filed against respondent. He was acquitted on reasonable doubt but was declared civilly liable for US$2,555. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended a one-year suspension.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Primo R. Naldoza should be held administratively liable for professional misconduct, specifically for deceitfully obtaining money from his client and for filing a frivolous appeal, notwithstanding his acquittal in the related criminal case for estafa.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Primo R. Naldoza is administratively liable. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty and DISBARRED respondent from the practice of law. The Court held that administrative cases against lawyers are sui generis and distinct from criminal cases. Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar administrative proceedings, as the standards of proof differ (preponderance of evidence in administrative cases versus proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases). The Court found clearly preponderant evidence establishing respondent’s misconduct. He deceived his client by misrepresenting the need for a “cash bond,” fabricated a receipt, and filed a petition for review despite knowing the POEA decision was final, which constituted a frivolous appeal meant to delay. These acts violated the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The gravity of the offenses, involving deceit and abuse of court processes, warranted the supreme penalty of disbarment.