Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 10135 January 15, 2014

EDGARDO AREOLA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

This refers to the administrative complaint1 filed by Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. Muhammad Khadafy against Atty. Maria Vilma
Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), from the Public Attorney s Office (PAO) for violation of her attorney s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

In the letter-complaint dated November 13, 2006 addressed to the Honorable Commissioners, Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda,
Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez and Elizabeth Perez. He alleged that on October 23, 2006, during Prisoners
Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all detainees with pending cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 73, Antipolo City where she was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture.2 Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the
following during her speech:

"O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay maging praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya
agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na
ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-
iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon." 3

Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases, all detainees should prepare and furnish her with their
Sinumpaang Salaysay so that she may know the facts of their cases and their defenses and also to give her the necessary payment
for their transcript of stenographic notes.4

Areola furthermore stated that when he helped his co-inmates in drafting their pleadings and filing motions before the RTC Branch 73,
Antipolo City, Atty. Mendoza undermined his capability, to wit:

(1) Atty. Mendoza purportedly scolded detainee Seronda when she learned that the latter was assisted by Areola in filing a
Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Republic Act No. 8942 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) in the latter’s criminal case for rape, which
was pending before the RTC, Branch 73, Antipolo City. She got angrier when Seronda retorted that he allowed Areola to file
the motion for him since there was nobody to help him.

(2) Areola assisted Spouses Danilo and Elizabeth Perez in filing their Joint Motion for Consolidation of Trial of Consolidated
Offenses and Joint Motion to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense. The spouses were likewise scolded for relying on the
Complainant and alleged that the respondent asked for ₱2,000.00 to represent them.

(3) Areola helped another co-detainee, Mirador in filing an "Ex-parte Motion to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense". When Atty.
Mendoza learned of it, she allegedly scolded Mirador and discredited Areola.5

In her unverified Answer6 dated January 5, 2007, Atty. Mendoza asseverated that the filing of the administrative complaint against her
is a harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had also filed several administrative cases against judges in the courts of Antipolo City
including the jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where Areola was previously detained. These actuations show that Areola has a penchant for
filing various charges against anybody who does not accede to his demand. 7 Atty. Mendoza contended that Areola is not a lawyer but
represented himself to his co-detainees as one.8 She alleged that the motions/pleadings prepared and/or filed by Areola were not
proper.

After both parties failed to appear in the Mandatory Conference set by the IBP on August 15, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner
considered the non-appearance as a waiver on their part. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, both parties were required to submit
their respective position papers.9

1
On December 29, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and Recommendation.10 The Investigating Commissioner
stated that the Complainant is knowledgeable in the field of law. While he may be of service to his fellow detainees, he must, however,
be subservient to the skills and knowledge of a full fledged lawyer. He however found no convincing evidence to prove that Atty.
Mendoza received money from Areola’s co-detainees as alleged. The charges against Atty. Mendoza were also uncorroborated, viz:

There is no convincing evidence that will prove that the respondent received money from the inmates since the charges are
uncorroborated. In fact, the complainant is not the proper party to file the instant case since he was not directly affected or injured by
the act/s being complained of. No single affidavits of the affected persons were attached to prove the said charges. Hence, it is simply
hearsay in nature.11

Nonetheless, Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer that she advised her clients and their relatives to approach the judge and the
fiscal "to beg and cry" so that their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be dismissed. To the Investigating
Commissioner, this is highly unethical and improper as the act of Atty. Mendoza degrades the image of and lessens the confidence of
the public in the judiciary.12 The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Mendoza be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of two (2) months.13

In a Notice of Resolution14 dated November 19, 2011, the Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

Atty. Mendoza sought to reconsider the Resolution15 dated November 19, 2011 but the IBP Board of Governors denied her motion in
its Resolution16 dated May 10, 2013. The Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors was transmitted to the Court for final action
pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 12, Paragraph b17 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The Court’s Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records, the Court finds that the instant Complaint against Atty. Mendoza profoundly lacks
evidence to support the allegations contained therein. All Areola has are empty assertions against Atty. Mendoza that she demanded
money from his co-detainees.

The Court agrees with the IBP that Areola is not the proper party to file the Complaint against Atty. Mendoza. He is not even a client of
Atty. Mendoza. He claims that he filed the Complaint on behalf of his co-detainees Seronda, Arca, Mirador and Spouses Perez, but it is
apparent that no document was submitted which would show that they authorized Areola to file a Complaint. They did not sign the
Complaint he prepared. No affidavit was even executed by the said co-detainees to substantiate the matters Areola raised.
Consequently, the Court rejects Areola’s statements, especially as regards Atty. Mendoza’s alleged demands of money.

The Court agrees with the observations of the Investigating Commissioner that Areola initiated this complaint when he felt insulted
because Atty. Mendoza refused to acknowledge the pleadings and motions he prepared for his co-detainees who are PAO clients of
Atty. Mendoza.18 It appears that Areola is quite knowledgeable with Philippine laws. However, no matter how good he thinks he is, he
is still not a lawyer. He is not authorized to give legal advice and file pleadings by himself before the courts. His familiarity with
Philippine laws should be put to good use by cooperating with the PAO instead of filing baseless complaints against lawyers and other
government authorities. It seems to the Court that Areola thinks of himself as more intelligent and better than Atty. Mendoza, based on
his criticisms against her. In his Reply19, he made fun of her grammatical errors and tagged her as using carabao english20. He also
called the PAO as "Pa-Amin Office"21 which seriously undermines the reputation of the PAO. While Areola may have been frustrated
with the way the PAO is managing the significant number of cases it deals with, all the more should he exert efforts to utilize his
knowledge to work with the PAO instead of maligning it.

Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and plead for compassion so that their
motions would be granted. This admission corresponds to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that she told her clients "
Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon." Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge
is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.

As such, the Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of
Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states that "a lawyer shall
impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."

Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without
pressure or influence from external forces or factors22 according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled
for.

It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.1âwphi1 To that end, his client’s
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable
and unethical.23

2
In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2) months as excessive and not commensurate to Atty.
Mendoza’s infraction. Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be
imposed with great caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the
bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.24The Court notes that when Atty. Mendoza made the remark "Iyak-iyakan
lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon", she was not compelled by bad faith or malice. While her
remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to
the Judiciary.

In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors.
Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse,
family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying
significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.25 The Court takes note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-motive in the
present case and her being a PAO lawyer as her main source of livelihood.26 Furthermore, the complaint filed by Areola is clearly
baseless and the only reason why this was ever given consideration was due to Atty. Mendoza’s own admission. For these reasons,
the Court deems it just to modify and reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper advice to her clients in
violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is accordingly meted out the penalty of
REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

PERALTA,** J.:
This is a Petition for Disbarment which petitioners Manuel Enrique L. Zalamea and Manuel Jose L. Zalamea filed against their lawyer,
Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr., for acquiring their property by virtue of their lawyer-client relationship, in violation of the Lawyer's
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The following are the factual antecedents of the case:

In 2000, petitioners Manuel Enrique Zalamea and Manuel Jose Zalamea (the Zalamea brothers) sought respondent Atty. Rodolfo P.
de Guzman, Jr.'s advice on the properties of their ailing mother, Merlinda L. Zalamea, who had a property situated at Scout Limbaga,
Quezon City under her name. When Merlinda passed away, De Guzman then prepared a letter for a possible tax-free transfer of the
Scout Limbaga property to the Merlinda Holding Corporation which was sought to be incorporated to handle Merlinda's estate, and
notarized the incorporation papers of said corporation.

In September 2001, the Zalameas put up EMZEE FOODS INC., (EMZEE) a corporation engaged in lechon business, with De Guzman
providing the capital and operational funds. Sometime in 2002, Manuel Enrique informed De Guzman about the property located at
Speaker Perez St. (Speaker Perez property) which was then under the name of Elarfoods, Inc. (Elarfoods), a corporation owned and
run by the Zalamea brothers' aunts and uncles. Since said property had been mortgaged to Banco de Oro (BDO), the bank foreclosed it
when Elarfoods failed to pay the loan. Elarfoods likewise failed to redeem the property, resulting in the consolidation of the ownership
over the property in BDO's name.

Later, Manuel Enrique approached De Guzman and convinced him to help in the reacquisition of the Speaker Perez property from
BDO. De Guzman thus negotiated with BDO and was able to secure a deal over the property for P20 Million. The bank required 10%
downpayment of the total price or P2 Million, to be paid in thirty-six (36) monthly installments, without interest. Due to lack of funds
on Manuel Enrique's part, De Guzman's wife, Angel, agreed to shoulder the P2 Million downpayment in order not to lose the good
opportunity, but under the condition that the Speaker Perez property would later be transferred in the name of a new corporation they
had agreed to form, the EMZALDEK Venture Corporation, a combination of the names EMZEE Foods, Zalamea, and Dek de Guzman.
By this time, EMZEE had also relocated to Speaker Perez.

Subsequently, Angel was forced to pay the monthly installments and the additional 20% required for EMZEE to be able to transfer its
office to the Speaker Perez property, since Manuel Enrique still could not produce sufficient funds and EMZEE continued to incur
losses. All in all, Angel paid P13,082,500.00.

Not long after, the relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and the Spouses De Guzman turned sour. The Spouses De Guzman
wanted reimbursement of the amounts which they had advanced for the corporation, while the Zalamea brothers claimed sole
ownership over the Speaker Perez property. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly buying a
client's property which was subject of litigation.

After a careful review and evaluation of the case, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against De Guzman for lack of merit on October 12, 2011. [1] On December 29, 2012, the
IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution[2] adopting and approving the recommended dismissal of the complaint, thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," and finding the
3
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that the complaint is
without merit, the same is hereby DISMISSED.

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and recommendations of the IBP.

An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include
statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27,[3] Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.[4]

Under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited to acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person
or through the mediation of another, their client's property and rights in litigation, hence:

ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another:

xxxx

5. Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to
lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.

6. Any others specially disqualified by law.

Indeed, the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach of professional ethics and constitutes
malpractice. The persons mentioned in Article 1491 are prohibited from purchasing said property because of an existing trust
relationship. A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation because of his fiduciary
relationship with such property and rights, as well as with the client. The very first Canon of the Code of Professional
Responsibility[5] provides that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
process." Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him, while Canon 16 provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Further, Section 3, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer to take an oath to obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by the
Court. All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of any provision of law by a
lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act which the Court will never countenance.[6]

Here, the accusation against De Guzman stemmed from his wife's purchase of the Speaker Perez property from BDO when Manuel
Enrique did not have the means to buy it. The Zalameas claim that De Guzman, as their counsel, could not acquire the property, either
personally or through his wife, without violating his ethical duties. De Guzman therefore has breached the same when his wife
purchased the subject property.

However, the prohibition which the Zalameas invoke does not apply where the property purchased was not involved in litigation. De
Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's properties or interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession. There exists not even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever been involved in any litigation in which De
Guzman took part by virtue of his profession. True, they had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle
their mother's estate, which likewise did not involve the contested property. Neither was it shown that De Guzman's law firm had taken
part in any litigation involving the Speaker Perez property.

The prohibition which rests on considerations of public policy and interests is intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer
upon his client on account of his fiduciary and confidential relationship with him. De Guzman could not have possibly exerted such
undue influence, as a lawyer, upon the Zalameas, as his clients. In fact, it was Manuel Enrique who approached the Spouses De
Guzman and asked them if they would be willing to become business partners in a lechon business. It was also Manuel Enrique who
turned to De Guzman for help in order to reacquire the already foreclosed Speaker Perez property. They had agreed that De Guzman
would simply pay the required downpayment to BDO and EMZEE would pay the remaining balance in installment. And when EMZEE
continued suffering losses, Angel took care of the monthly amortizations so as not to lose the property.

Clearly, the relationship between the Spouses De Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is actually one of business partners rather than
that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition of the Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal, not
by reason of a lawyer-client relationship, for Which he could not be penalized by the Court. De Guzman and his wife are very well
allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and their conduct in this regard was not borne out to have been attended by any undue
influence, deceit, or misrepresentation.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court DISMISSES the Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo P. de
Guzman, Jr. for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

4
 EN BANC

A.C. No. 11078, July 19, 2016

VERLITA V. MERCULLO AND RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E.

RAMON, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This case concerns the complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath for deceiving the complainants in order to obtain the
substantial amount of P350,000.00 on the pretext of having the foreclosed asset of the latter's mother redeemed.

Antecedents

In the period from 2002 to 2011, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) sent several demand
letters to Carmelite T. Vedaño1 regarding her unpaid obligations secured by the mortgage covering her residential
property in Novaliches, Caloocan City.2 To avoid the foreclosure of the mortgage, Carmelita authorized her children,
Verlita Mercullo and Raymond Vedaño (complainants herein), to inquire from the NHMFC about the status of the
obligations. Verlita and Raymond learned that their mother's arrears had amounted to P350,000.00, and that the
matter of the mortgage was under the charge of respondent Atty. Ramon, but who was not around at that time.

On June 20, 2012, Carmelita received a letter from the sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Caloocan City,
stating that her property would be put up for auction in July 2013. Verlita and Raymond thus went to the NHMFC to
see the respondent, who advised them about their right to redeem the property within one year from the
foreclosure.3chanrobleslaw

In August 2013, Verlita and Raymond called up the respondent, and expressed their intention to redeem the property
by paying the redemption price. The latter agreed and scheduled an appointment with them on August 30, 2013.

On August 30, 2013, the respondent arrived at the designated meeting place at around 1:30 p.m., carrying the folder
that Verlita and Raymond had seen at the NHFMC when they inquired on the status of their mother's property. After
the respondent had oriented them on the procedure for redemption, the complainants handed P350,000.00 to the
respondent, who signed an acknowledgment receipt.4 The respondent issued two acknowledgment receipts for the
redemption price and for litigation expenses,5presenting to the complainants her NHMFC identification card. Before
leaving them, she promised to inform them as soon as the documents for redemption were ready for their mother's
signature.6chanrobleslaw

On September 4, 2013, the respondent met with Verlita and handed a letter7 that she had signed, along with the
special power of attorney (SPA) for Carmelita's signature.8 The letter reads:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff
Regional Trial Court
Caloocan City

Re: Redemption of the property covered by EJF No. 7484-2013

Dear Arty. Dabalos,

Please assist Ms. Carmelita Vedano, through her Attorney-in-Fact in redeeming the property covered by EJF No.
7484-2013. Please provide the necessary computation as to the full redemption amount in order for Ms. Vedano to
redeem the same.

Thank you. Truly yours,

(Sgd.)
Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon

Verlita and Raymond went to the NHMFC on September 9, 2013 to follow up on the redemption, but discovered that
the respondent had already ceased to be connected with the NHMFC. On September 20, 2013, they met with her at
Branch 145 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City where she was attending a hearing. She informed them that the
5
redemption was under process, and that the certificate of redemption would be issued in two to three weeks
time.9chanrobleslaw

After communicating through text messages with the respondent, Verlita and Raymond finally went to see the Clerk
of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City On November 27, 2013 to inquire on the status of the
redemption. There, they discovered that the respondent had not deposited the redemption price and had not filed the
letter of intent for redeeming the property.10chanrobleslaw

On December 5, 2013, Verlita and Raymond again went to Branch 145 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City
where the respondent had a hearing, and handed to her their demand letter requiring her to return the amount she
had received for the redemption.11 She acknowledged the letter and promised to return the money on December 16,
2013 by depositing the amount in Verlita's bank account. However, she did not fulfill her promise and did not show
up for her subsequent scheduled hearings in Branch 145.12chanrobleslaw

With their attempts to reach the respondent being in vain, Verlita and Raymond brought their disbarment complaint
in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

The respondent did not submit her answer when required to do so. She also did not attend the mandatory conference
set by the IBP despite notice. Hence, the investigation proceeded ex parte.13chanrobleslaw

IBP Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano submitted his Report and Recommendation,14 whereby he found the respondent
to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for engaging in deceitful conduct, and
recommended her suspension from the practice of law for two years, and her return to the complainants of
P350,000.00. with legal interest from December 2, 2013.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Adriano's recommendation as stated in its Resolution No. XXI-
2014-929,15viz.:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and
finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and for violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years and Ordered to Return the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand
(P350,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.

Ruling of the Court

The Court declares the respondent guilty of dishonesty and deceit.

The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer. Any violation of the oath may be
punished with either disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law, or other commensurate disciplinary
action.16 Every lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent
to his admission to the Bar, but are also essential for his continued membership in the Law Profession. 17 Any conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer constitutes a violation of his oath.

The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by receiving money from the complainants after having
made them believe that she could assist them in ensuring the redemption in their mother's behalf. She was
convincing about her ability to work on the redemption because she had worked in the NHFMC. She did not inform
them soon enough, however, that she had meanwhile ceased to be connected with the agency. It was her duty to
have so informed them. She further misled them about her ability to realize the redemption by falsely informing them
about having started the redemption process. She concealed from them the real story that she had not even initiated
the redemption proceedings that she had assured them she would do. Everything she did was dishonest and deceitful
in order to have them part with the substantial sum of P350,000.00. She took advantage of the complainants who
had reposed their full trust and confidence in her ability to perform the task by virtue of her being a lawyer. Surely,
the totality of her actuations inevitably eroded public trust in the Legal Profession.

As a lawyer, the respondent was proscribed from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in her
dealings with others, especially clients whom she should serve with competence and diligence. 18 Her duty required
her to maintain fealty to them, binding her not to neglect the legal matter entrusted to her. Thus, her neglect in
connection therewith rendered her liable.19 Moreover, the unfulfilled promise of returning the money and her refusal
to communicate with the complainants on the matter of her engagement aggravated the neglect and dishonesty
attending her dealings with the complainants.
6
The respondent's conduct patently breached Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for
legal processes.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the unlawful act or omission of the respondent within the coverage of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility20 The Code exacted from her not only a firm respect for the law
and legal processes but also the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys
entrusted by them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.21chanrobleslaw

Yet another dereliction of the respondent was her wanton disregard of the several notices sent to her by the IBP in
this case. Such disregard could only be wrong because it reflected her undisguised contempt of the proceedings of
the IBP, a body that the Court has invested with the authority to investigate the disbarment complaint against her.
She thus exhibited her irresponsibility as well as her utter disrespect for the Court and the rest of the Judiciary. It
cannot be understated that a lawyer in her shoes should comply with the orders of the Court and of the Court's duly
constituted authorities, like the IBP, the office that the Court has particularly tasked to carry out the specific function
of investigating attorney misconduct.22chanrobleslaw

The respondent deserves severe chastisement and appropriate sanctions. In this regard, the IBP Board of Governors
recommended her suspension for two years from the practice of law, and her return of the amount of P350,000.00 to
the complainants. The recommended penalty is not commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct committed. She
merited a heavier sanction of suspension from the practice of law for five years. Her professional misconduct
warranted a longer suspension from the practice of law because she had caused material prejudice to the clients'
interest.23 She should somehow be taught to be more ethical and professional in dealing with trusting clients like the
complainants and their mother, who were innocently too willing to repose their utmost trust in her abilities as a
lawyer and in her trustworthiness as a legal professional. In this connection, we state that the usual mitigation of the
recommended penalty by virtue of the misconduct being her first offense cannot be carried out in her favor
considering that she had disregarded the several notices sent to her by the IBP in this case. As to the return of the
P350,000.00 to the complainant, requiring her to restitute with legal interest is only fair and just because she did not
comply in the least with her ethical undertaking to work on the redemption of the property of the mother of the
complainants. In addition, she is sternly warned against a similar infraction in the future; otherwise, the Court will
have her suffer a more severe penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS ATTY . MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath; SUSPENDS HER FROM THE PRACTICE OF
LAW FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with the STERN WARNING that any similar
infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely; ORDERS her to return to the complainants the sum of
P350,000.00 within 30 days from notice, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this
decision until full payment; and DIRECTS her to promptly submit to this Court written proof of her compliance within
the same period of 30 days from notice of this decision.

Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Marie Frances E.
Ramon's personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court
Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary