A.C. No. 9074 - GRACE M. ANACTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, in an Order [13] dated October 6, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner deemed respondent to have waived the filing of an answer; noted complainants motion to declare respondent in default; and gave the complainant 10 days from notice within which to file her verified position paper, after which the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution. Complainant filed her verified Position Paper [14] on October 15, 2008. In his Report and Recommendation [15] dated December 8, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner found clear and convincing evidence that respondent is guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he misrepresented having filed the petition for annulment of marriage after receipt of P42,000.00 when in fact no such petition was filed. He thus recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and to reimburse/return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00. In a Resolution [16] dated August 28, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two years to four years and ordered respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P42,000.00, otherwise his suspension will continue until he returns the sum involved. Our Ruling We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP. In Narag v. Atty. Narag [17] this Court held that [t]he burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. In this case, complainant submitted the following documents to prove her allegations: (1) the Service Agreement dated November 15, 2004 to prove the existence of attorney-client relationship between the parties; (2) the Petition for Annulment of Marriage [18] supposedly filed by respondent on December 8, 2004 with the RTC of Quezon City and docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141; (3) the Certification issued by the Assistant Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City showing that no Petition for Annulment of Marriage with Civil Case No. Q-0425141 was filed on December 8, 2004; (4) the letter dated March 6, 2005 of the complainant to the respondent informing the latter that she is terminating his legal services effective immediately; (5) the letter of complainant to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City wherein she requested that any belated attempt by my former lawyer Atty. Resurreccion to file any Petition for Annulment x x x be refused acceptance; and, (6) the letter dated July 30, 2007 of complainants new counsel demanding for an explanation as to how respondent intended to indemnify the complainant for damages she had suffered by reason of respondents fraudulent misrepresentations. [19] In the face of such a serious charge, the respondent has chosen to remain silent. Thus, we find the confluence of the evidence submitted by the complainant to hav