A.C. No. 12044 - MARTIN J. SIOSON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. And is ordered to return the amount of P10,000.00 paid by to(sic) the complaint(sic). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [16] On February 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution [17] adopting and approving the findings and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Aguilera, thus: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03, Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and Ordered to Return the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos to Complainant . [18] Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration [19] asserting that the February 20, 2015 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors was based on a misapprehension of facts. Atty. Apoya, Jr. insisted that he never met Sioson on November 27, 2013, the day Sioson supposedly engaged his services. He averred that he never ignored the February 20, 2014 and March 7, 2014 letters from Sioson. In fact, he immediately filed criminal cases for Grave Threats and Grave Coercion against Sioson because of the latter's scheme to use the instant administrative case as leverage for the criminal cases respondent Apoya, Jr. filed against Sioson. On August 26, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution [20] denying respondent Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration, there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors. Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed a second Motion for Reconsideration [21] , insisting that the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by Sioson are not proof and do not show the existence of attorney-client relationship between him and Sioson. On March 1, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution [22] denying respondent Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s second Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the rules do not allow the filing of a second motion for reconsideration and the same second Motion for Reconsideration is evidently dilatory. The Court's Ruling After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, the Court upholds the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s refusal to return Sioson's money upon demand and his failure to respond to Sioson's calls, text messages and letters asking for a status update on the case filed before the DOJ reveal Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of his oath and the Code of Profession