A.C. No. 9833. March 19, 2019. FORTUNE MEDICARE, INC., represented by DOROTHEA J. SIBAL, and ATTY. MELAN ESPELA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RICHARD C. LEE, Respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Fortune Medicare, Inc. and its counsel, Atty. Melan Espela, negotiated a settlement with respondent Atty. Richard C. Lee, the prevailing party in a final and executory illegal dismissal case. The parties agreed to settle for Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), with respondent withdrawing his cases and both signing a Compromise Agreement and an Urgent Motion to Dismiss. They scheduled a meeting for March 1, 2013, at the Labor Arbiter’s office for signing and payment. Complainants acceded to respondent’s last-minute demand for cash payment. During the meeting, after confirming receipt of the cash, respondent refused to sign the documents, declared the money as merely partial payment, and left with his companions. Atty. Espela attempted to stop him but was blocked, and one companion motioned as if drawing a firearm.
Respondent claimed he agreed to receive the cash as partial payment only, believing Fortune was hiding assets to frustrate execution of the full monetary award. He asserted he provided an Acknowledgment Receipt for partial payment and denied any robbery, noting the criminal case was dismissed. He characterized the disbarment complaint as harassment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Richard C. Lee violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Court found clear and convincing evidence that respondent acted with deceit and bad faith. He entered into a clear amicable settlement for a definite amount to conclude the labor case. His subsequent refusal to sign the documents after receiving the cash, and his unilateral declaration that it was only partial payment, constituted a willful betrayal of the agreement. This conduct violated Rule 1.01 of the Code (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct), Canon 7 (a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity of the legal profession), Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), and Canon 8 (requiring courtesy and fairness toward professional colleagues).
The legal logic centers on the fiduciary nature of the legal profession and the duty of candor. A lawyer’s word, especially in settlement negotiations, must be his bond. Respondent’s actions were not a legitimate enforcement of a judgment but a dishonest scheme to obtain money under false pretenses. He exploited the settlement meeting to secure cash through misrepresentation, demonstrating a lack of the honesty, probity, and good demeanor required of an officer of the court. Such egregious misconduct, which seriously undermines the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal profession, justifies the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty of suspension, emphasizing that the protection of the public and the preservation of the integrity of the bar are paramount.