LOURDES R. BUSINOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT heirs on one Pedro Rodrigo.

heirs on one Pedro Rodrigo. She was one of the defendants in said civil
December 22, 1997 | Per curiam | Obligations of a Lawyer in relation to a sum of case before the RTC of Ligao, Albay, which involved the adjudication of
money entrusted to him by his client the properties of her deceased father.
▪ The RTC directed the Clerk of Court to release all deposits of rentals
PETITIONER: LOURDES R. BUSINOS made in connection with the case to the defendant heirs of Pedro
RESPONDENTS: ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT Rodrigo through one of the heirs, Pedro Rodirgo, Jr., who was assigned
as an attorney-in-fact by the heirs.
SUMMARY: Businos accused Atty. Ricafort as guilty of the crime of estafa. ▪ Aty. Ricafort allegedly received the amount PHP 25,000. Apart from said
Atty. Ricafort was entrusted with some amounts of money with the amount, Atty. Ricafort also received PHP 5,000 from Oas Standard High
obligation to deposit the same to the bank account of the husband of Businos. School as rental fee. Said sums were entrusted to Atty. Ricafort with an
Atty. Ricafort, however converted the money to his own personal use, and obligation to deposit the same to the account of petitioner Businos’
despite several demands, he failed to return the same to Businos. husband.
▪ On another instance, he also misled Businos by demanding the amount
DOCTRINE: of PHP 2,000 for the payment of bond in said case. The amount was never
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or used as intended since no bond was required, and that Atty. Ricafort
malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He failed to issue a receipt as he received the same.
is obligated to report promptly the money of his client that has come into his ▪ Atty. Ricafort converted the money to his own personal use, and despite
possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it several demands, he failed to return the same to Businos. Hence, the
for his personal purposes without his clients consent. He should maintain a institution of this complaint.
reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust. ▪ There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of
his clients without their consent.
▪ A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money
FACTS:
or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his
clients. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his client that
Petitioner Businos lodged a complaint against respondent Atty. Ricafort before
has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his
the Supreme Court. In her complaint, she accused Atty. Ricafort as guilty of the
private property or use it for his personal purposes without his clients
crime of estafa. She alleged that he misappropriated the sum of PHP 32,000. Of
consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to
that amount, PHP 30,000 was entrusted to Atty. Ricafort, as counsel, to deposit
private trust.
the same to the bank account of the husband of petitioner Businos. The remaining
amount of PHP 2,000 represents the amount which Atty. Ricafort demanded from
Aty. Versoza undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By
Busios for a bond in a civil case which he has been entrusted on. However, no
so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he
bond was required to be filed in such case.
degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of
an honorable profession. recommended that respondent. She recommended that
Atty. Ricafort failed to comment on the complaint lodged against him despite a
Atty.Francisco Ricafort be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
number of instances where the Court transmitted him notices regarding said
ONE (1) YEAR.
complaint. The Court then resolved that Atty. Ricafort has waived his right to file
his comment and referred the same to the Office of the Bar Confidant for
ISSUE:
reception of Businos’ evidence and recommendation.
Whether or not the punishment recommended is proper. NO.
Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa, the Bar Confidant who handled his case, found the
following:
RULING:
▪ Atty. Ricafort is indeed guilty for having misappropriated the sum of PHP
32,000 which his client, Busios, entrusted the same. While the findings are in order, the penalty recommended is not
▪ His services were procured by Busios such that the latter is one of the commensurate to respondent’s infractions.
Page 1 of 2
Plainly, respondent breached Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His transgressions manifested dishonesty and
amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical behavior which
caused dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the noble profession to
which he belongs.
The Court Resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT from
the practice law. His name is hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Page 2 of 2