5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________
 

A.C. No. 5408. February 7, 2017.*

 
ANITA SANTOS MURRAY, complainant, vs. ATTY.
FELICITO J. CERVANTES, respondent.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Respondent’s failure to timely and

diligently deliver on his professional undertaking justifies the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP’s) conclusion that he must
restitute complainant the amount of P80,000.00.—It is evident
from the records that respondent failed to deliver on the services
that he committed to complainant despite receiving the amount of
P80,000.00 as acceptance fee. Although respondent asserted that
he did not actively

_______________

*  EN BANC.

 
 
2

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

solicit this amount from complainant, it remains, as

Commissioner Funa underscored, that respondent accepted this
amount as consideration for his services. Moreover, following
complainant’s engagement of his services, respondent failed to
communicate with complainant or update her on the progress of
the services that he was supposed to render. Not only did he fail
in taking his own initiative to communicate; he also failed to
respond to complainant’s queries and requests for updates.
Respondent’s failure to timely and diligently deliver on his
professional undertaking justifies the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines’ conclusion that he must restitute complainant the
amount of P80,000.00.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Jurisdiction; The
competence of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is only
recommendatory. Under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987
Constitution, only the Supreme Court (SC) has the power to
actually rule on disciplinary cases of lawyers, and to impose
appropriate penalties.—We emphasize that, during the
proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
respondent acknowledged his duty to compensate complainant for
the amount of P80,000.00. He then made a commitment to return
that sum to her. To date, however, he has failed to deliver on the
commitment made almost twelve and a half years ago. We clarify
that the oral instruction given to respondent in the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines’ August 18, 2004 hearing was not a
juridically binding order. Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

sanctions and spells out the terms of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines’ involvement in cases involving the disbarment and/or
discipline of lawyers. The competence of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is only recommendatory. Under Article VIII, Section
5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, only this Court has the power to
actually rule on disciplinary cases of lawyers, and to impose
appropriate penalties. Rule 139-B merely delegates investigatory
functions to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. With the
exercise of its delegated investigatory power, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines refers proposed actions to this Court.
Recognizing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ limited
competence in disciplinary cases impels a concomitant recognition
that, pending favorable action by this Court on its
recommendations, its determinations and conclusions are only
provisional. Therefore, rulings on disciplinary cases attain finality
and are enforceable only upon this Court’s own determination
that they must be imposed.

 
 

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 3

Murray vs. Cervantes

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; That he has failed to adhere to his

own freely executed commitment after more than a decade speaks
volumes of how he has miserably failed to live up to the “high
standard of. . . morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing” that
is apropos to members of the legal profession.—The oral
instruction given to respondent in the August 18, 2004 hearing
has, thus, not attained such a degree of finality as would
immutably require him to comply, such that failure to comply
justifies additional or increased penalties. Penalizing him for
noncompliance is premature. Nevertheless, respondent
acknowledged his duty to compensate complainant for the amount
of P80,000.00 and made his own commitment to make this
compensation. He may not have been bound by a juridical
instruction, but he was certainly bound by his own honor. That he
has failed to adhere to his own freely executed commitment after
more than a decade speaks volumes of how he has miserably
failed to live up to the “high standard of . . . morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing” that is apropos to members of the legal
profession. For this reason, we exact upon respondent a penalty
more severe than that initially contemplated by the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Moreover, to impress
upon respondent the urgency of finally returning to complainant
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

the amount he received, we impose on him an additional penalty

corresponding to the duration for which he fails to make
restitution. We adopt the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board
of Governors’ position in Resolution No. XVI-2004-481 that an
additional period of suspension must be imposed on respondent
for every month (or fraction) that he fails to pay in full the
amount he owes complainant. However, instead of a three (3)-
month suspension for every month (or fraction) of nonpayment or
incomplete payment, he is to be suspended for one (1) month for
every such period of failure to make full payment.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation

of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
   Roberto C. Bermejo for complainant.

 
 

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

RESOLUTION
 
LEONEN, J.:
 
We sustain, with modification, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XVI-2004-
4811 and Resolution No. XVIII-2008-711.2
Resolution No. XVI-2004-481 modified the Board of
Governors’ Resolution No. XV-2002-599.3 The latter ruled
that respondent Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes must be
reprimanded and ordered to return to complainant Anita
Santos Murray the sum of P80,000.00.4 Resolution No.
XVI-2004-481 modified this with the penalty of one (1)-year
suspension from the practice of law, with an additional
three (3)-month suspension for every month (or fraction)
that respondent is unable to deliver to complainant the
sum of P80,000.00.5 Resolution No. XVIII-2008-711 denied
respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration.6
On February 2, 2001, complainant filed before this
Court a Complaint7 charging respondent with violating
Canon 188 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

_______________

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

1  Rollo, p. 278.
2  Id., at p. 275.
3  Id., at p. 132.
4  Id.
5  Id., at p. 278.
6  Id., at p. 275.
7  Id., at pp. 1-4.
8  Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18 provides:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.01 – A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows
or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

 
 

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 5

Murray vs. Cervantes

Complainant alleged that sometime in June 2000, she

sought the services of a lawyer to assist in the
naturalization (that is, acquisition of Philippine
citizenship) of her son, Peter Murray, a British national.
Respondent was later introduced to her. On June 14, 2000,
she and respondent agreed on the latter’s services, with
complainant handing respondent the sum of P80,000.00 as
acceptance fee.9
About three (3) months passed without respondent doing
“anything substantial.”10 Thus, on September 11, 2000,
complainant wrote respondent to inform him that she was
terminating his services. She explained:

I am not satisfied with the way things are going regarding my

petition. I am expecting that you keep me abreast of your
activities but I am left in the dark as to what have you done so
far. You do not show up on our scheduled appointments nor do
you call me up to let me know why you cannot come. You stood me
up twice already which shows that you are not even interested in
my case.
....
Since I already paid the P80,000.00 acceptance fee in full, I
expect to get a refund of the same from you.11

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

As respondent failed to return the P80,000.00

acceptance fee, complainant instituted the Complaint in
this case. She

_______________

Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – 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.
9   Rollo, p. 133.
10  Id., at p. 134.
11  Id.

 
 

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

also instituted criminal proceedings against respondent

for violation of Article 315(1)(b)12 of the Revised Penal
Code.13

_______________

12  REV. PENAL CODE, Art. 315 provides:

Article 315. Swindling (Estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión
mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000
pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but
the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the
penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case
may be.
2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos;

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión

correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but
does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not
exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be
committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
. . . .
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another,
money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same,
even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
13  Rollo, p. 134.

 
 
7

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 7

Murray vs. Cervantes

This case was subsequently referred to the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines for its investigation, report, and
recommendation.14
After the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B.
Raval (Commissioner Raval) furnished a Report15 dated
September 9, 2002 recommending that respondent be
reprimanded and required to return the sum of P80,000.00
to complainant. In its Resolution No. XV-2002-599,16 the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
adopted Commissioner Raval’s recommendations.
Respondent filed before this Court a Motion for Leave to
Admit Additional Evidence with Motion to Dismiss.17 He
asserted that he never required complainant to
immediately pay him P80,000.00 as acceptance fee.18 This
Motion was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines19 and was treated as respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration.20 For her part, complainant filed several
manifestations and motions asking that a heavier penalty
be imposed on respondent.21
Acting on the pending incidents of the case,
Investigating Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa
(Commissioner Funa) furnished a Report22 recommending
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

one (1) year, with an additional three (3)-month suspension

for every month (or fraction) that respondent fails to
deliver to complainant the sum of P80,000.00.

_______________

14  Id., at p. 65, Resolution dated September 17, 2001.

15  Id., at pp. 133-137.
16  Id., at p. 132.
17  Id., at pp. 140-148.
18  Id., at pp. 141-142.
19  Id., at p. 183.
20  Id., at p. 227.
21  Id., at pp. 186-205.
22  Id., at pp. 226-229.

 
 

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

Commissioner Funa justified the penalty of suspension

by emphasizing that, in a hearing conducted by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines on August 18, 2004,
respondent was “orally directed” to return the P80,000.00
not later than the end of August 2004.23 Respondent
acceded to this; however, he failed to return the
P80,000.00.24
In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-481,25 the Board of
Governors adopted Commissioner Funa’s recommendation.
The Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XVIII-2008-711
later denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration.26
It is evident from the records that respondent failed to
deliver on the services that he committed to complainant
despite receiving the amount of P80,000.00 as acceptance
fee. Although respondent asserted that he did not actively
solicit this amount from complainant, it remains, as
Commissioner Funa underscored, that respondent accepted
this amount as consideration for his services.27 Moreover,
following complainant’s engagement of his services,
respondent failed to communicate with complainant or
update her on the progress of the services that he was
supposed to render. Not only did he fail in taking his own
initiative to communicate; he also failed to respond to
complainant’s queries and requests for updates.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

Respondent’s failure to timely and diligently deliver on

his professional undertaking justifies the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines’ conclusion that he must restitute
complainant the amount of P80,000.00.
Luna v. Galarrita28 has explained the parameters for
ordering restitution in disciplinary proceedings:

_______________

23  Id., at p. 228.
24  Id.
25  Id., at p. 225.
26  Id., at p. 275.
27  Id., at p. 228.
28  A.C. No. 10662, July 7, 2015, 762 SCRA 1 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

 
 

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 9

Murray vs. Cervantes

In Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar, the parties entered a Deed of

Assignment after which respondent received P937,500.00 from
complainant as partial payment for the townhouse and lot.
However, respondent did not turn over this amount to developer
Crown Asia, and no copy of the Contract to Sell was given to
complainant. This court suspended Atty. Cezar from the practice
of law for three (3) years, but did not grant complainant’s prayer
for the return of the P937,500.00.
Ronquillo held that “[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers
do not involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the
court into the conduct of one of its officers.” Thus, disciplinary
proceedings are limited to a determination of “whether or not the
attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the
Bar.”
Later jurisprudence clarified that this rule excluding civil
liability determination from disciplinary proceedings “remains
applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in
nature — for instance, when the claim involves moneys received
by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and
distinct [from] and not intrinsically linked to his professional
engagement.” This court has thus ordered in administrative
proceedings the return of amounts representing legal fees.
This court has also ordered restitution as concomitant relief in
administrative proceedings when respondent’s civil liability was
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

already established:
Although the Court renders this decision in an
administrative proceeding primarily to exact the ethical
responsibility on a member of the Philippine Bar, the
Court’s silence about the respondent lawyer’s legal
obligation to restitute the complainant will be both unfair
and inequitable. No victim of gross ethical misconduct
concerning the client’s funds or property should be required
to still litigate in another proceeding what the
administrative proceeding has already established as the
respondent’s liability. That has been the reason why the
Court has required restitution of the

 
 

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

amount involved as a concomitant relief in the cited cases of

Mortera v. Pagatpatan, Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, Small v.
Banares.29 (Citations and emphases omitted)

 
It is proper, in the course of these disciplinary
proceedings, that respondent be required to return to
complainant the amount of P80,000.00. This amount was
delivered to respondent during complainant’s engagement
of his professional services, or in the context of an attorney-
client relationship. This is neither an extraneous nor
purely civil matter.
By the same failure to timely and diligently deliver on
his professional undertaking (despite having received fees
for his services), as well as by his failure to keep
complainant abreast of relevant developments in the
purposes for which his services were engaged, respondent
falls short of the standards imposed by Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.01 – A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which
he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render.
However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his
client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
Rule 18.04 – 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. (Emphasis supplied)

_______________

29  Id., at pp. 22-23.

 
 

11

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 11

Murray vs. Cervantes

Disciplinary sanctions more severe than those

considered proper by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
are warranted.
We emphasize that, during the proceedings before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, respondent
acknowledged his duty to compensate complainant for the
amount of P80,000.00. He then made a commitment to
return that sum to her. To date, however, he has failed to
deliver on the commitment made almost twelve and a half
years ago.
We clarify that the oral instruction given to respondent
in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ August 18, 2004
hearing was not a juridically binding order. Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court sanctions and spells out the terms of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ involvement in cases
involving the disbarment and/or discipline of lawyers. The
competence of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is only
recommendatory. Under Article VIII, Section 5(5)30 of the
1987 Constitution, only this Court has the power to
actually rule on disciplinary cases of lawyers, and to
impose appropriate penalties.
Rule 139-B merely delegates investigatory functions to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. With the exercise of
its delegated investigatory power, the Integrated Bar of the
Phil-

_______________

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

30  CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 5 provides:

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
....
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance
to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

 
 
12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

ippines refers proposed actions to this Court. Recognizing

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ limited competence
in disciplinary cases impels a concomitant recognition that,
pending favorable action by this Court on its
recommendations, its determinations and conclusions are
only provisional. Therefore, rulings on disciplinary cases
attain finality and are enforceable only upon this Court’s
own determination that they must be imposed.
The oral instruction given to respondent in the August
18, 2004 hearing has, thus, not attained such a degree of
finality as would immutably require him to comply, such
that failure to comply justifies additional or increased
penalties. Penalizing him for noncompliance is premature.
Nevertheless, respondent acknowledged his duty to
compensate complainant for the amount of P80,000.00 and
made his own commitment to make this compensation.31
He may not have been bound by a juridical instruction, but
he was certainly bound by his own honor. That he has
failed to adhere to his own freely executed commitment
after more than a decade speaks volumes of how he has
miserably failed to live up to the “high standard of . . .
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing”32 that is
apropos to members of the legal profession.
For this reason, we exact upon respondent a penalty
more severe than that initially contemplated by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors.
Moreover, to impress upon respondent the urgency of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

finally returning to complainant the amount he received,

we impose on him an additional penalty corresponding to
the duration for which he fails to make restitution. We
adopt the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors’ position in Resolution No. XVI-2004-481 that an
additional period of suspension must be

_______________

31  Rollo, p. 228.
32  Ventura v. Samson, 699 Phil. 404, 407; 686 SCRA 430, 433 (2012)
[Per Curiam, En Banc].

 
 
13

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 7, 2017 13

Murray vs. Cervantes

imposed on respondent for every month (or fraction) that

he fails to pay in full the amount he owes complainant.
However, instead of a three (3)-month suspension for every
month (or fraction) of nonpayment or incomplete payment,
he is to be suspended for one (1) month for every such
period of failure to make full payment.
This approach hopefully underscores the burden that
respondent must justly carry. By automatically extending
his suspension should he not return the amount, we save
complainant, the victim, from the additional costs of having
to find and retain another counsel to compel the return of
what is due her. Counsels who have caused harm on their
clients must also suffer the costs of restitution.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year
and six (6) months. He is ORDERED to restitute
complainant Anita Santos Murray the sum of P80,000.00.
For every month (or fraction) that he fails to fully restitute
complainant the sum of P80,000.00, respondent shall suffer
an additional suspension of one (1) month.
He is likewise WARNED that a repetition of similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be served on the Office of
the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to
respondent’s personal record as attorney.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

SO ORDERED.
 

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-
Bernabe and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., On Leave.

 
 
14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Murray vs. Cervantes

Respondent Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes suspended from

practice of law for one (1) year and six (6) months and
ordered to return to complainant P80,000.00.

Note.—Lawyers should maintain, at all times, “a high

standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing, and must perform their four (4)-fold duty
to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients,
in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).” (Luna vs.
Galarrita, 762 SCRA 1 [2015])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7675d2f6f6f59a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14