A.C. No. 5054; May 29, 2002
SOLEDAD NUÑEZ, Represented by ANANIAS B. CO, Attorney-in-Fact for Complainant, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Soledad Nuñez, represented by her attorney-in-fact, engaged respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort to sell two parcels of land in 1982, agreeing to a 10% commission. Respondent sold the properties but failed to remit the proceeds to the complainant. This compelled Nuñez to file a civil case for a sum of money. Respondent was declared in default, and a 1993 decision ordered him to pay P16,000. His appeal was dismissed for non-payment of docket fees. An alias writ of execution was subsequently issued.
In partial satisfaction of the judgment, respondent issued four postdated checks for the unsatisfied balance of P13,800. All checks were dishonored upon presentment because the bank account had been closed. Demands to make good the checks were ignored, leading to the filing of criminal complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In an affidavit, respondent claimed he closed the account believing the checks had been encashed and was not notified of their dishonor.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort should be held administratively liable for his actions in relation to his professional obligations.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct warranting indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The Court concurred with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing respondent’s notorious dishonesty and abuse of client confidence. His failure to turn over the sale proceeds constituted initial deceit. His subsequent legal maneuvers—defaulting, filing a frivolous appeal dismissed for non-payment, and issuing worthless checks from a closed account—demonstrated a deliberate pattern to evade a lawful obligation and misuse judicial processes. This blatantly violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) against dishonest and deceitful conduct.
Furthermore, respondent exhibited contempt for the Court by obtaining three extensions to file his comment in this administrative case and then failing to submit it without explanation, violating Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of the CPR concerning undue delay and obedience to court orders. The IBP’s recommended one-year suspension was deemed inadequate. Given the compounded gravity of his actions—palpable bad faith, defiance of court processes, and disrespect to the Supreme Court—the penalty of indefinite suspension was imposed. He was also ordered to pay the complainant P13,800 within ten days.