A.C. No. 8494 - SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, he would consult his wife which finally did not materialize because his wife was not amenable which in effect showed that they have vested interest on the property and they are bent on taking the property at any cause. He even challenged us to file an appropriate case in court against him rather than agree with our pleading for payment of cash. Likewise, he refused our offer to pay his services in cash alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and claimed that our possession would not be disturbed and that he will be filing a case for Certiorari as promised. To our surprise though, we came to know that the Manifestation filed by Atty. Bangot is not a preparatory pleading for certiorari . No way could it even stop the intrusion into our property. Basically, we were deceived by Atty. Bangot into believing that the Manifestation he filed would stop any legal disturbance on our property and the same is preparatory for certiorari . [5] Feeling aggrieved, the complainants decided to bring their complaint against the respondent. On his part, the respondent denied the allegations of the complainants. He insisted that the complaint against him was a harassment tactic designed to intimidate him from seeking judicial remedies to settle their dispute on the validity of the MOA; [6] that the MOA was valid; that the Manifestation for Information he had filed in court prevented the intrusion into the complainants' land; that the administrative complaint was designed to insure the derailment of his application for a judgeship position, and to cover up the negligence of the complainants' counsel as the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2008-302 (for annulment and/or rescission of agreement), which case was dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement for the prior barangay conciliation proceedings; and that they had voluntarily signed the MOA without intimidation, fraud or undue influence. [7] On August 23, 2010, the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. [8] Findings and Recommendation of the IBP In due course, IBP Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero submitted his Report and Recommendation [9] finding the complaint against the respondent meritorious, and recommending that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year for his unfair and injudicious treatment of the complainants as his clients. In Resolution No. XX-2013-71, [10] the IBP Board of Governors increased the duration of the respondent's recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for two years, viz.: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED AND APPROVED, with modification , 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 fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering t