Accordingly, we are billing you the amount of [P]300,000.00, which is the liquidated damages payable for the month of October 2013. Very truly yours, ROBERTO L. DAKUDAO, SR., et al., (Signed) BY: MA. VICTORIA D. DUMLAO cc: Atty. Yolando F. Lim [9] (Emphasis supplied) On November 20, 2013, Atty. Lim apologized to Dumlao, et al. for the delay and disclosed a possible source of funds to cover Burgundy Asset's financial obligation, [10] to wit: November 20, 2013 ROBERTO L. DAKUDAO, SR., ET AL. Dakudao Compound, Km 6 Lanang Davao City Thru: MA. VICTORIA D. DUMLAO RE: Reply to 4 November 2013 Letter Sir/Madam, We are sorry about the delay. We will make up [for] the delay as soon as the funds will be [sic] released to Burgundy on or before December. We know that we have been promising a lot of times but hopefully, this time it could [sic] no longer a promise but already a reality. We will inform you on or before December 20, 2013 about the status of the funds we are anticipating to arrive to pay off the obligation. Again, please bear with us. Thank you very much. Truly yours, (Signed) YOLANDO F. LIM For the firm [11] In February 2014, Atty. Lim requested for an extension of time to pay the.damages and to complete the project until May 2014. Yet, Burgundy Asset failed to perform its obligation [12] and could no longer be contacted. [13] In 2017, Dumlao, et.al. filed against Burgundy Asset a complaint for specific performance, sum of money, and damages with prayer for injunctive relief before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Manila (RTC) docketed as Civil Case No. 17-138020. [14] Burgundy Asset moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for non-referral of the case to arbitration. [15] On November 17, 2017, the RTC dismissed the complaint for prematurity and lack of cause of action. [16] Meantime, Victoria filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Lim before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). [17] Victoria alleged that Atty. Lim made untruthful statement during the proceedings in Civil Case No. 17- 138020 when he denied knowledge of the Compromise Agreement dated June 7, 2013 between Dumlao, et al. and Burgundy Asset. [18] The misrepresentation misled the RTC and gave Burgundy Asset more time to evade its obligations. [19] On the other hand, Atty. Lim contended that the disbarment case is a retaliatory action for the dismissal of the complaint before the RTC. Atty. Lim insisted that he was unaware of the compromise agreement because he was not present when Serafica signed the settlement. Atty. Lim also explained that there was a misunderstanding and that he was referring to the oral settlement he negotiated with Dumlao, et al. when he testified in open court. [20] Atty. Lim came to lmow of the existence of the Compromise Agreement dated June 7, 2013 only in 2017 when he received Dumlao, et al.'s complaint in Civil Case No. 17-138020. Atty. Lim did not deceive the RTC since he merely relayed Burgundy Asset's reason for t