A.C. No. 12475 ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, Complainant ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, Respondent Decision Per Curiam
A.C. No. 12475 ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, Complainant ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, Respondent Decision Per Curiam
12475
ROSALIE P. DOMINGO, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN, Respondent
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
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, and is
located at Binangonan, Rizal. According to complainant, she gave respondent an acceptance fee of
₱75,000.00, wherein ₱50,000.00 was paid on June 10, 2016; while the remaining ₱25,000.00 was
paid on June 27, 2016. She further claimed that on July 12, 2016, she gave respondent another
₱50,000.00 as deposit to cover the expenses related to the expected litigation. After barangay
conciliation proceedings failed, complainant instructed respondent to file the appropriate case in
court.
On August 16, 2016, respondent sent an Email to complainant seeking to borrow another
2
₱200,000.00 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
₱100,000.00 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 of
3
Binangonan, Rizal (MTC). The said complaint had a receiving stamp, with a handwritten note that it
was received by the MTC. It also had a handwritten docket number of Civil Case No. 2016-036.
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, docketed as Civil Case No. 16-022.
However, in an Order dated October 10, 2016, the MTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It
4
explained that the complaint did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements for ejectjment 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 dated October 20, 2016, stating that she was terminating their legal engagement.
5
Complainant also demanded respondent to return the deposit of ₱50,000.00 and the cash advance
of ₱100,000.00.
Complainant engaged the services of another lawyer, Atty. Luis Martin V. Tan, to communicate with
respondent. The latter initially agreed to return the ₱100,000.00 cash advance by November 30,
2016, and, eventually, the ₱50,000.00 deposit. However, respondent still reneged on his obligations.
Complainant sent another Demand Letter to respondent to comply with his obligations but it was
6
unheeded. 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.
Initially, complainant only sought for the return of ₱40,000.00 from the deposit. However, in her
Position Paper, she demanded for the return of the entire ₱50,000.00 because respondent never
7
proved that he actually incurred any expense chargeable against the said deposit. Complainant also
sought for the return of the ₱100,000.00 because it constituted as a loan, which respondent had not
paid.
On May 3, 2017, the IBP Commission required respondent to file his answer. However, on July 10,
2017, respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. 8
Several months passed but respondent still failed to file his answer. Thus, on November 16, 2017,
even without respondent's answer, the IBP Commission set the case for mandatory conference on
December 11, 2017. During the said conference, only the counsel of complainant appeared.
On December 14, 2017, respondent filed a Motion to Admit (Herein Attached Answer and Mandatory
Conference Brief) with Manifestation. In his Answer, respondent admitted the allegations in the
9 10
complaint that he received an acceptance fee of ₱75,000.00 and a deposit for legal expenses in the
amount of ₱50,000.00. He also admitted that he borrowed ₱100,000.00 from complainant but that it
was not a loan; rather, it was a cash advance to be deducted from the appearance fees and other
service fees in the handling of cases. He also asserted that the said amount is fully protected by the
nature of the cases, which he is handling.
On the alleged fake receiving copy of the complaint, respondent averred that he relied in good faith
in the representations of his messenger and claimed that it was an honest mistake. He added that
when he learned of the non-filing of the complaint, he immediately confronted his messenger and
filed the complaint in court. Respondent, however, admitted that the case was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
With respect to his failure to update his client regarding the status of her case, he explained that it
was due to the distance of the parties and erratic internet services. Thus, he failed to get in touch
with complainant to give case updates.
The IBP Commission required both parties to submit their position papers. However, only
complainant filed her position paper.
In its Report and Recommendation dated March 8, 2018, the IBP Commission found that
11
respondent violated the Code and recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
two (2) years. It observed that respondent cannot blame his messenger because he should have
known that the receiving copy of the complaint for ejectment was fake because of the questionable
hand-written docket number and receiving stamp. The IBP Commission highlighted that respondent
gave a shallow excuse of erratic internet service for his failure to give case updates. It opined that
respondent indeed received ₱50,000.00 as deposit even though he had not rendered substantial
legal service; that he borrowed ₱100,000.00 from his client; and that he failed to pay his monetary
obligations. It likewise emphasized that respondent failed to comply with the orders of the IBP
Commission.
In its Resolution dated June 28, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted with
12
modification the penalty recommended against respondent to suspension from the practice of law for
a period of two (2) years; and to pay a fine of ₱5,000.00 for disobeying the orders of the IBP
Commission.
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Commission but modifies the recommended penalty of the
IBP Board.
Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that
would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. The proper evidentiary
13
threshold in disciplinary or disbarment cases is substantial evidence. It is defined as "that amount of
14
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." 15
Rule 1.01 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. It instructs that as officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a
high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
16
Rule 16.04 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's
interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. The rule against
borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking
advantage of his influence over his client.17
On the other hand, Rule 18.04 of the Code states that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. It
is the lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of his case as it is
crucial in maintaining the latter's confidence. 18
In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated Rule 1.01, Rules 16.04, and 18.04 of the Code
based on the substantial evidence presented by complainant.
As properly found by the IBP Commission, respondent was tasked by complainant to file a complaint
for ejectment before the court. To show his compliance, he furnished her with the alleged receiving
copy of the complaint for ejectment filed before the MTC. However, it was discovered by
complainant that no such complaint was actually filed. When confronted, respondent admitted the
fake receiving copy but blamed his messenger for such wrongdoing.
The Court cannot accept the flimsy excuse of respondent. A plain reading of the first page of the
purported complaint readily shows that it was not properly filed. The words "MTC" and the date were
only handwritten in the portion of the received stamp. Also, the docket number of the alleged
complaint was merely handwritten. As highlighted by the IBP, these are net the standard operating
procedures in filing a complaint in court.
As a lawyer, respondent should have noticed these irregularities before furnishing his client with the
copy of the said complaint. Further, respondent did not give any concrete detail on the
consequences incurred by his messenger; whether appropriate criminal or disciplinary charges were
instituted against him for faking the said receiving copy. In any case, respondent cannot "pass the
buck" to his messenger and escape liability because he has a sworn duty to observe due diligence
and honesty in dealing with his client.
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. 19
While respondent eventually filed a complaint for ejectment before the MTC, docketed as Civil Case
No. 16-022, it was swiftly dismissed because the jurisdictional requisites were not stated in the
complaint. Again, this shows respondent's gross carelessness in advancing the cause of his client.
Aside from furnishing his client with a fake complaint, respondent also admitted that he borrowed
money from complainant. As found by the IBP Commission, respondent borrowed ₱100,000.00 from
complainant, as evidenced by his email. Respondent claims that the amount was merely a cash
advance on his legal fees. However, even when his legal services were terminated and there was no
more basis for the cash advance, he never returned said amount.
Respondent's argument - that the borrowed amount was fully protected by the nature of the case or
by independent advice - deserves scant consideration. Aside from this bare allegation, respondent
did not provide any detail or justification regarding such protections surrounding the loan that he
secured from his client.
It must be underscored that borrowing money from a client is prohibited under Rule 16.04. A lawyer's
act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts
considered as abuse of client's confidence. The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by
the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his or her obligation. Unless the
20
client's interests are fully protected, a lawyer must never borrow money from his or her client.
Further, respondent obtained the amount of ₱50,000.00 from complainant as deposit for his legal
fees, on top of the ₱75,000.00 he received as his acceptance fee. However, as discussed above,
respondent did not perform any substantial legal service for complainant because he simply
furnished her with a fake complaint. Even when the actual complaint was filed in court, it was
immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, respondent should not have received the said
amount from complainant because he did not render any significant service in the furtherance of his
client's case.
Worse, when complainant sought to recover the amounts of ₱50,000.00, as deposit, and
₱100,000.00, as cash advance, from respondent, it fell on deaf ears. Respondent initially gave an
assurance that he would eventually pay complainant but it did not materialize. Even assuming that
respondent borrowed the ₱100,000.00 for a genuine purpose of financing his wife's hospitalization, it
neither justifies his non-observance of the high moral standards required from a member of the legal
profession nor extinguishes his obligation to repay his client promptly and fully. Indeed, respondent's
misdealing towards his client is manifest and obvious.
That being said, the Court has consistently held that 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.21
After borrowing money from his client, respondent did not update his client anymore regarding the
status of her case. It was only when complainant actually verified with the MTC that she confirmed
the fake complaint for ejectment.
Verily, respondent cannot invoke the distance of the parties or the erratic internet service in failing to
comply with his duty as a lawyer. If respondent was sincere in updating complainant with her case,
then he should have availed of the numerous and modern channels of communication to reach his
client, but he failed to do so. Hence, respondent violated Rule 18.04, which requires that a lawyer
must regularly update his or her client regarding the status of his or her case.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important
information he may have acquired affecting his client's case. He should notify his client of any
adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping
the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust
and confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer
is defending the client's interests. In this connection, the lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his
actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Concomitantly, the lawyer is
expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals
with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but
also a wholehearted fealty to the client's cause.22
Proper penalty
The Court finds that respondent furnished complainant a fake complaint, thereby facilitating deceit
against his client; that he borrowed ₱50,000.00 as deposit and ₱100,000.00 as cash advance, but
he neither justified such amounts nor repaid the same; and that he failed to regularly update his
client regarding the status of her case. These acts and omissions violate Rules 1.01, 16.04, and
18.04 of the Code.
In Foster v. Atty. Agtang the lawyer demanded excessive filing and representation fees from his
23
client. He also secured several loans from his client but failed to pay the same. The Court found that
he violated Rules 1.01 and 16.04 of the Code. For taking advantage of the complainant and for
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, he was disbarred from the practice of law and was
ordered to return the excessive fees he received from his client.
In HDI Holdings Philippines, Inc. v. Atty. Cruz, the lawyer committed several reprehensible acts in
24
transacting with his client, including executing a fake secretary's certificate. He also borrowed money
from his client and failed to pay the same. The lawyer violated several provisions of the Code,
including Rules 1.01 and 16.04. The ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed against him.
In Krursel v. Atty. Abion, the lawyer therein drafted a fake order from this Court in order to deceive
25
her client and she also did not inform her client regarding her case. The Court stated that she made
a mockery of the judicial system. Her conduct degraded the administration of justice and weakened
the people's faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched the entire legal profession. She
violated, among others, Rules 1.01 and 18.04 of the Code. The penalty of disbarment was imposed
against the lawyer.
Recently, in Justice Lampas-Peralta, et al. v. Atty. Ramon, the lawyer drafted a fake decision of the
26
Court of Appeals and demanded exorbitant professional fees from her clients. She was even caught
in an entrapment operation by the National Bureau of Investigation. She was disbarred and her
name was immediately stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
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. As he violated numerous provisions of the Code, particularly, Rules 1.01,
16.04, and 18.04, 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.
With respect to the amounts received from complainant, the Court finds that these must be returned
by respondent. Disciplinary proceedings revolve around the determination of the respondent-
1âшphi1
lawyer's administrative liability, which must include those intrinsically linked to his professional
engagement. 27
Here, the Court finds that the amount of ₱50,000.00, as legal deposit to cover the expenses related
to the expected litigation, and ₱100,000.00, as cash advance chargeable against the appearance
fees and other fees, are intrinsically linked to respondent's professional legal services to
complainant. Hence, these amounts must be returned. Also, the said amounts shall have an interest
at the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of the receipt of this Decision until full
payment. 28
Finally, the Court finds that respondent disobeyed the orders of the IBP Commission. As early as
May 3, 2017, he was duly notified to file his answer but he failed to do so. Instead, he belatedly filed
his answer and brief on December 14, 2017 after the scheduled mandatory conference on
December 11, 2017. He also neither attended the scheduled mandatory conference nor filed his
position paper despite due notice. Respondent's failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without
justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.
29
It must be underscored that respondent owed it to himself and to the entire Legal Profession of the
Philippines to exhibit due respect towards the IBP as the national organization of all the members of
the Legal Profession. His unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment
and to appear in the administrative investigation of his misconduct revealed his irresponsibility as
well as his disrespect for the IBP and its proceedings. He thereby exposed a character flaw that
should not tarnish the nobility of the Legal Profession. He should always bear in mind that his being
a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a person of the highest moral and professional
integrity and probity in his dealings with others. He should never forget that his duty to serve his
clients with unwavering loyalty and diligence carried with it the corresponding responsibilities
towards the Court, to the Bar, and to the public in general.
30
For his disobedience to the orders of the IBP Commission, respondent must pay a fine of ₱5,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan is GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan is also hereby meted a FINE in the amount ₱5,000.00 for disobedience to
the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline. These payments
shall be made within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Decision.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty.
Jorge C. Sacdalan's records. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned.
SO ORDERED.