AC 5811; (January, 2003) (Digest)
A.C. No. 5811; January 20, 2003
Maritess Garcia, complainant, vs. Atty. Iluminado M. Manuel, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Maritess Garcia engaged respondent Atty. Iluminado M. Manuel in February 1999 to handle an ejectment case against her former husband and to secure child support. They executed a retainer agreement with a fee of P70,000, and complainant gave an advance of P10,000. Subsequently, respondent requested and received another P10,000 from complainant, purportedly for filing fees. Respondent sent a demand letter but did not file the ejectment case.
During a follow-up on April 7, 1999, complainant discovered the case had not been filed. A confrontation ensued, leading respondent to return the case documents but not the money paid. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct, alleging ineffective handling and failure to account for and return the funds. Respondent defended his actions by claiming he awaited a registry return card for the demand letter and that the P10,000 for filing fees was applied to complainant’s outstanding fee arrears.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Iluminado M. Manuel is administratively liable for gross misconduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) findings, adopting its resolution but modifying the penalty. The legal logic rests on violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent acted dishonestly by soliciting P10,000 for filing fees prematurely, as the jurisdictional demand requirement was not yet complete. He also failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the case status, violating Rule 18.04. Furthermore, he neglected to render a proper accounting of the received funds, contravening his fiduciary duty.
While disbarment was sought, the Court imposed a six-month suspension, deeming it sufficient for the misconduct, which, though serious, did not warrant disbarment as it did not irreparably affect his character as an officer of the court. Suspension serves to protect the public and the legal profession. The Court also ordered respondent to render an accounting of all monies received from complainant within thirty days.