GR L 11295; (March, 1958) (Digest)
March 11, 2026GR 135042; (September, 1999) (Digest)
March 11, 2026G.R. No. A.C. No. 4073, June 28, 2001
Araceli Sipin-Nabor, complainant, vs. Atty. Benjamin Baterina y Figueras, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Araceli Sipin-Nabor, along with her siblings, engaged the services of respondent Atty. Benjamin Baterina as their counsel in a civil case for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Complainant paid respondent P2,000.00, which he demanded for the purpose of filing an answer with counterclaim. Respondent had complainant execute a verification under the pretext that he had prepared the answer, but he ultimately failed to file it. Consequently, the trial court declared the defendants in default, allowed ex parte presentation of evidence, and rendered an adverse decision. Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent for betrayal of trust and grave misconduct. The Supreme Court repeatedly required respondent to file a comment on the complaint, but he failed to do so despite orders and the imposition of fines. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found respondent guilty and recommended a six-month suspension.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Benjamin Baterina should be disciplined for gross misconduct, including deceit, malpractice, and willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court found that respondent deceived complainant by demanding and receiving P2,000.00 for filing an answer which he never filed, thereby converting the money for his own use. This act constitutes deceit, malpractice, and a gross violation of professional ethics, betraying the confidence reposed in him by his client. Furthermore, his repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders to file his comment demonstrated irresponsibility and willful disobedience. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law effective immediately. Respondent was also ordered to restitute the P2,000.00 to complainant within ten days from notice, with the suspension to continue until payment is made. The resolution took effect immediately.
