MURRAY v. ATTY. CERVANTES

ANITA SANTOS MURRAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. FELICITO J. CERVANTES, Respondent.

A.C. No. 5408

February 07, 2017

FACTS:

On February 2, 2001, complainant filed before this Court a Complaint charging respondent with violating Canon 188 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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 Php 80,000.00 as acceptance fee. About three (3) months passed without respondent doing "anything substantial." On September 11, 2000, complainant wrote respondent to inform him that she was terminating his services and expected that respondent return the said fees. As respondent failed to return the Php 80,000.00 acceptance fee, complainant instituted the Complaint in this case and a criminal proceedings against respondent for violation of Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

This case was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its investigation, report, and recommendation. . After the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Investigating Commissioner Demaree J.B. Raval (Commissioner Raval) furnished a Report dated September 9, 2002 recommending that respondent be reprimanded and required to return the sum of Php 80,000.00 to complainant. Respondent filed before this Court a Motion for Leave to Admit Additional Evidence with Motion to Dismiss. This Motion was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and was treated as respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent suspended from the practice of law for 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.

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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, Respondent falls short of the standards imposed by Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and entitled for suspension.

HELD:

The Court ruled that 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, Court 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 the amount he received, the Court impose on him an additional penalty corresponding to the duration for which he fails to make 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) the he fails to fully restitute complainant the sum of P80,000.00, respondent shall suffer an additional suspension of one (1) month.