Domingo vs. Atty. Sacdalan

A.C. No.
12475, March 26, 2019
ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, RESPONDENT.
Facts: Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent to recover possession
of a parcel of land from illegal settlers. The subject land is co-owned by complainant with her
sister, Rizal. According to complainant, she gave respondent an acceptance fee. After barangay
conciliation proceedings failed, complainant instructed respondent to file the appropriate case in
court.
Respondent sent an Email to complainant seeking to borrow another P200,000.00 in the form of
a cash advance, which would allegedly be charged against his appearance fees and other fees.
He claimed that he was borrowing money for his wife's hospitalization. Complainant agreed to
respondent's request for cash advance and gave him P100,000.00 out of compassion.
After granting the request, complainant inquired regarding the status of her case. Respondent
sent her a copy of the purported Complaint For Ejectment filed in the Municipal Trial Court. The
said complaint had a receiving stamp, with a handwritten note that it was received by the MTC.
However, respondent did not give any updates to complainant regarding the case filed. Thus,
she inquired directly with the MTC on the status of her case. To her surprise, she was informed
that there was no such complaint for ejectment filed with the MTC.
Consequently, complainant confronted respondent about the purported ejectment complaint.

The latter explained that the non-filing of the complaint was due to the mistake of his office staff.
Respondent assured her that the complaint would be filed.
A complaint for ejectment was eventually filed in the MTC. However, the MTC dismissed the
case for lack of jurisdiction. It explained that the complaint did not comply with the jurisdictional
requirements for ejectment as it neither alleged the requisites under forcible entry nor unlawful
detainer.
As complainant was completely dissatisfied with the services of respondent, she sent an Email
stating that she was terminating their legal engagement. Complainant also demanded
respondent to return the deposit of P50,000.00 and the cash advance of P100,000.00.
However, respondent reneged on his obligations.
Thus, she filed this instant administrative complaint alleging that respondent violated the
provisions of the Code for presenting a fake ejectment complaint and for non-payment of the
money he borrowed.
Issue: Whether or not defendant should be disbarred.
Held: Yes. Respondent admitted the fake receiving copy but blamed his messenger for such
wrongdoing. By delivering a fake receiving copy of the complaint to his client, thereby deceiving
the latter in filing the case, respondent participated in deceitful conduct towards his client in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code. As a lawyer, respondent was proscribed from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in his dealings with others, especially clients
whom he should serve with competence and diligence.
Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal
system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the
judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to
the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations.
In this case, the acts and omissions of respondent constitute malpractice, gross negligence and
gross misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and appalling indifference to his
duty to his client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust
reposed in him as a member of the Bar. The Court finds that the ultimate penalty of disbarment
must be imposed against respondent and his name must be stricken off the Rolls of Attorneys.

Domingo vs. Atty. Sacdalan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domingo vs. Atty. Sacdalan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

12475, March 26, 2019

ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, RESPONDENT.

Consequently, complainant confronted respondent about the purported ejectment complaint.

Issue: Whether or not defendant should be disbarred.

You might also like