AC 4349; (December, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997
LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Lourdes R. Busiños charged respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort with misappropriating P32,000.00. Specifically, P30,000.00, representing rental deposits from Oas Standard High School in Civil Case No. 1584, was entrusted to respondent for deposit into the bank account of complainant’s husband, but he instead converted it to his personal use. An additional P2,000.00 was demanded and received by respondent from complainant supposedly for a bond in the same civil case, when no such bond was required. Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with Supreme Court resolutions requiring him to comment on the complaint, leading to a waiver of his right to file a comment and the referral of the case for reception of evidence. During the proceedings, complainant testified that respondent eventually paid her P60,000.00, covering the misappropriated amounts and attorney’s fees, but she did not withdraw the disbarment complaint.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort should be disbarred for professional misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds, deceit, and failure to obey lawful orders of the Court.
RULING
Yes, respondent is DISBARRED. The Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and grossly unethical behavior for violating Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to account for, commingling, and not delivering client funds upon demand. His act of deceiving the complainant to obtain money for a non-existent bond constituted deceitful conduct. His repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders to comment on the complaint aggravated his misconduct, demonstrating irresponsibility and a violation of the respect due to courts. The belated payment of the misappropriated amounts did not extinguish his administrative liability. To maintain the integrity and standards of the legal profession, the Court resolved to disbar respondent and order his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.