Cristobal v. Renta

Facts:

Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe & Associates Law Office for the filing of a "petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration. Respondent, the managing partner of the firm, signed the "Special Contract of Legal Services" and received the "full and package price" of P160,000 for the filing of the petition for recognition. However, no petition was filed. Complainant then filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to file the petition for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite demand. Respondent explained that it was supposedly Anneth Tan to file the petition but lost it without informing him of such fact and assured that he will return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's Affidavit of Desistance which averred that respondent cried for forgiveness and that he has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already refunded the amount he paid.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his breached duty to serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.

Held:
On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, it was held that execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. It was held that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.