A.C. No. 13361 [Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5314] - HENRY G. LACIDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REJOICE S. SUBEJANO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Comm. Maala recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for five years. In a Resolution [18] dated June 17, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted the findings of the Comm. Maala but reduced the recommended penalty to six months suspension from the practice of law. Aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [19] (MR), arguing that: (a) he was not the legal counsel of Megamitch as it was SD Law; (b) he incurred the loan in his personal capacity, and the loan has nothing to do with any of the cases handled by SD Law for Megamitch; (c) he did not take undue advantage of or deceive Megamitch to secure the loan; and (d) Megamitch's interests were duly protected by the independent advice of its officers and employees, as well as by postdated checks issued by Rentillosa. Respondent also subsequently filed a Supplemental MR, [20] to which he attached a copy of the Compromise Agreement [21] dated February 8, 2020 executed by De Schouwer and himself, which was submitted to the trial court for the provisional dismissal of the Estafa case. Complainant raised no objection to respondent's MR and Supplemental MR, and even prayed that respondent not be penalized so that he could comply with the Compromise Agreement. [22] Nonetheless, complainant prayed that the complaint be revived should respondent fail to comply with the terms of the Compromise Agreement. [23] In an Extended Resolution dated June 22, 2021, the IBP-BOG resolved to grant respondent's MR and Supplemental MR and recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The IBP-BOG held as follows: This admitted failure of respondent to settle his obligations appears to have been cured by events subsequent to the issuance of the June 17, 2019 Resolution of the 23 rd Board. More specifically, and as admitted by complainant, respondent had: (a) paid it the sum of [PHP]750,000.00, (b) executed a compromise agreement with complainant which enumerated how he will settle his loan obligation with complainant, and (c) issued postdated checks to complainant. In fact, complainant had even asked this Board not to sanction respondent with suspension so that he can duly pay his loan obligations to complainant. Clearly, these undisputed events reveal respondent's honest attempts to settle his loan obligation with the complainant and duly refute any notion that he used legal maneuverings to renege [on] his obligation with complainant. And with respondent's initial payment, his execution of a compromise agreement and his issuance of postdated checks to complainant, the interests of complainant on the said load had been fully protected. To the mind of this Board, these events thus show [that] respondent did not deliberately violate the spirit and letter of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, the dismissal of the instant case is warranted. [24] The Court's Ruling The Court adopts the recommendation of the IBP-BOG to dismiss the complaint agains