View full case

GRACITA P. DOMINGO-AGATON v. ATTY. NINI D. CRUZ

FACTS:

Gracita P. Domingo-Agaton filed a Disbarment Complaint against Atty. Nini D. Cruz for Grave Misconduct, which includes qualified theft, estafa, and betrayal of trust. In 2013, complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer for the reacquisition of an ancestral home that was foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Respondent drafted a Letter of Intent for the repurchase of the property from PNB for P2.5 Million. Complainant gave respondent a filing fee of P100,000 and a professional fee of P50,000. Upon verification, complainant discovered that the property was sold to a third party and learned that her consignation complaint, which was filed by respondent, was dismissed for violation of the rule against forum shopping before complainant gave her manager's check to respondent. Complainant's manager's check was cleared and deposited to the Regional Trial Court's account and was later withdrawn by another party in relation to a different case. Complainant sent demand letters for the return of her manager's check, but respondents claimed good faith in receiving the check.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complainant has satisfactorily proven the allegations against the respondent through substantial evidence.

  2. Whether the respondent should be disbarred based on the evidence presented.

  3. Whether the respondent's silence can be construed as an implied admission of the charges against her.

  4. Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent conduct.

  5. Whether the penalty of disbarment is warranted in this case.

  6. Whether the respondent should be ordered to refund the amount of P2 Million plus interest to the complainant.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the complainant has satisfactorily proven the allegations against the respondent through substantial evidence. The totality of evidence submitted by the complainant, such as letters, court orders, demand letters, and the criminal information charging the respondent and another individual with qualified theft, clearly and convincingly establish the respondent's dishonesty, deceit, and misappropriation of the complainant's manager's check.

  2. Yes, the respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The respondent's acts of concealing the dismissal of a case from the complainant, deceiving the complainant into purchasing the manager's check as a bond, misappropriating the complainant's manager's check, and deceiving the court with false representations all constitute deplorable conduct. Furthermore, the respondent's failure to file her comment and her prolonged silence during the proceedings indicate her lack of interest in defending herself or inability to refute the allegations against her.

  3. Yes, the respondent's silence can be construed as an implied admission of the charges against her. Silence in the face of false accusations is almost always interpreted as an admission of the truth.

  4. Yes, the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Her misappropriation of the complainant's manager's check and her act of misleading the court in a civil case demonstrate a serious flaw in her moral fiber.

  5. Considering the respondent's deplorable conduct and her inability to discharge the duties of a member of the legal profession, the Court finds that the extreme penalty of disbarment is warranted.

  6. The respondent is ordered to refund the amount of P2 Million representing the complainant's manager's check, plus 6% interest per annum from the date of demand until full payment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Complainant bears the burden of proof in disbarment cases to satisfactorily prove the allegations through substantial evidence.

  • Substantial evidence refers to relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • Disbarment may be imposed on a lawyer who exhibits dishonesty, deceit, misappropriation, and other deplorable acts.

  • Failure to file a comment and prolonged silence during the proceedings may be considered against the respondent in determining their guilt or liability.

  • Silence in the face of false accusations is construed as an implied admission of the truth thereof.

  • Possession of good moral character is a core qualification for members of the bar.

  • Lawyers are required to observe the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and their entrusted funds.

  • Deceitful conduct involving moral turpitude, contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, is prohibited under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The Court has the authority to impose disbarment or suspension for deceitful and dishonest acts, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, or violation of a lawful court order.

  • Misappropriation of client funds and engaging in fraudulent conduct are grounds for disbarment.

  • Lawyers may be ordered to refund misappropriated funds to their clients.