A.C. No. 9000 - TOMAS P. TAN, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he gave the amount of ?350,000.00 to respondent. Respondent, however, defaulted on her loan obligation and failed to pay the same despite complainant's repeated demands. Left with no recourse, complainant went to the Register of Deeds to register the sale, only to find out that respondent deceived him since the SPA did not give respondent the power to sell the property but only empowered respondent to mortgage the property solely to banks. Complainant manifested that he had lent money before to other people albeit for insignificant amounts, but this was the first time that he extended a loan to a lawyer and it bore disastrous results. He submitted that respondent committed fraud and deceit or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Upon being ordered by the IBP to answer the above allegations, respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading [5] but no answer or comment was ever filed by her before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Likewise, the IBP-CBD allowed respondent to answer the Amended Complaint subsequently filed by complainant but she did not file any answer thereto. [6] She also chose not to attend the mandatory conference hearings set on July 18, 2006, June 13, 2007 and January 25, 2008 despite due notice. Thus, she was deemed to have waived her right to participate in the proceedings. On February 9, 2009, IBP Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. rendered his report [7] finding respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, [8] Rule 1.01 [9] and Canon 7 [10] of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending that she be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Commissioner De La Rama opined that while respondent appears to be a co-owner of the property as evidenced by an annotation on the back of TCT No. 2055 showing that half of the property has been sold to her, it was evident that she employed deceit and dishonest means to make complainant believe, by virtue of the SPA, that she was duly authorized to sell the entire property. On August 28, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. in its Resolution No. XIX-2010-446: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for her failure to submit verified Answer and did not even participate in the mandatory conference, Atty. Haide V. Gumba is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. [11] We agree with the findings and conclusion of the IBP, but find that a reduction of the recommended penalty is called for, pursuant to the principle that the appropriate pe