A.C. No. 9115 - REBECCA MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, she demanded that respondent return the said property by executing the corresponding deed of conveyance in her favor together with an inventory and accounting of all the proceeds therefrom, but to no avail. [11] In this relation, Rebecca claimed that it was only on September 2, 2005 or after she had already instituted various legal actions and remedies that respondent and URCI agreed to transfer the subject property to her pursuant to a compromise agreement. [12] In his Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim, [13] respondent denied Rebeccas allegations and raised the affirmative defenses of forum shopping and prescription. He pointed out that Rebecca had filed several cases raising the single issue on the correct interpretation of the subject trust agreement. He also contended that the parties transactions in this case were made way back in 1993 and 1995 without a complaint having been filed until Bella came into the picture and instituted various suits covering the same issue. [14] As such, he sought the dismissal of the complaint, and further prayed for the payment of moral damages and attorneys fees by way of counterclaim. [15] On September 8, 2005, Rebecca filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint [16] in CBD Case No. 05-1484 for the reason that the facts surrounding the same arose out of a misunderstanding and misapprehension of the real facts surrounding their dispute. [17] However, on October 6, 2005, Bella filed a Manifestation with Leave of Court to File Motion for Intervention, [18] praying that the investigation of the charges against respondent continue in order to weed out erring members of the legal profession. [19] The Report and Recommendation of the IBP On October 8, 2007, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and Recommendation, [20] finding respondent guilty of serious misconduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), and, thus, recommended the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months. [21] On matters of procedure, the Investigating Commissioner opined that Rebeccas motion to withdraw did not serve as a bar for the further consideration and investigation of the administrative case against respondent. As basis, he cites Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provides that [n]o investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. Separately, the Investigating Commissioner denied the claim of forum shopping, noting that disciplinary cases are sui generis and may, therefore, proceed independently. [22] On the merits of the charge, the Investigating Commissioner observed that respondent lacked the good moral character required from members of the Bar when the latter failed to comply with the demands of Rebecca under the subject trust agreement, not to mention hi