View full case

GABRIELA CORONEL v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN

FACTS:

The complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Nelson A. Cunanan on May 17, 2005. She alleged that Atty. Cunanan advised and convinced her to hire him for the transfer of certain titles in violation of proper legal procedure. The complainant claimed that she paid Atty. Cunanan P70,000.00 for the transfer and other fees but he misappropriated the money and did not return it or the owner's duplicate copy of one of the titles.

Atty. Cunanan was ordered by the Court to comment on the complaint, but he only complied several months later. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the proceedings, the complainant requested the early resolution of her complaint. However, she later submitted an affidavit of desistance stating that she had made amends with Atty. Cunanan.

Both parties also submitted a joint motion to dismiss the case. Despite this, the IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution finding Atty. Cunanan guilty of malpractice and negligence. They recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six months and required him to return the P70,000.00 to the complainant.

Atty. Cunanan filed a motion for reconsideration based on the affidavit of desistance, but it was denied by the IBP.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the actions of the respondent constituted malpractice, deceit, or gross misconduct.

  2. Whether or not the complainant's affidavit of desistance and joint motion to dismiss should be considered as grounds for the dismissal of the disbarment complaint.

RULING:

  1. The IBP Board of Governors found the respondent guilty of malpractice and negligence. As a result, they recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law and the return of the complainant's payment amounting to P70,000.00.

  2. The IBP Board of Governors denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration, stating that the complainant's affidavit of desistance and joint motion to dismiss did not absolve the respondent from his misconduct. Thus, the recommendation for suspension and the return of payment were upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and public morals, or that lessens the public confidence in the legal system is guilty of gross misconduct and should be suspended from the practice of law or even disbarred.