Meneses v. Macalino

Facts:

The Atty. Rodolfo Macalino offered his legal services to Eduardo Meneses with a “package deal” of P60,000 to secure the release of complainant’s car from the Bureau of Customs. Meneses then paid P10,000 for processing the papers and P30,000 to expedite the release of car. However, the respondent failed to furnish receipts on both times and even failed to update the complainant on the matter. Meneses went to NBI and filed a complaint against estafa to Atty. Macalino but found insufficient evidence to prosecute the respondent. NBI advised the complainant to file a complaint for disbarment against the respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred for violating the lawyer’s oath.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled, as recommended by IBP, that the respondent was guilty of violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because (a) respondent failed to inform and respond to inquiries of the complainant regarding the status of the case, (b) respondent failed to account and return the money he received from complainant, and (c) respondent failed to file an answer and attend the hearings before the IBP. Considering the lack of prior administrative record and the complainant’s prayer, the Court suspended the complainant from the practice of law for one year, ordered to return the full amount of 20,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this decision until full payment, and directed to submit to the Court proof of payment.