A.C. No. 5473 - GENE M. DOMINGO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR..

Ruling

accordingly, it ordered respondent to immediately deliver to petitioner the amount of P513,000.00, plus interest computed at the legal rate. In Resolution No. XV-2002-597 passed on October 19, 2002, [19] the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation dated September 6, 2002 of the Investigating Commissioner. On January 14, 2003, the complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [20] praying that Resolution No. XV-2002-597 be reconsidered and set aside, and that the appropriate penalty of disbarment, or, at the very least, suspension be imposed on the respondent. On January 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed and adopted Resolution No. XV-2003-49 [21] denying the complainant's Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction to consider and resolve the matter by virtue of its having already been endorsed to the Court. Meanwhile, on January 29, 2003, the Court issued a resolution: (1) noting the resolution of the IBP-CBD reprimanding the respondent; and (2) directing him to inform the IBP of his compliance with the resolution. [22] After the IBP denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, the complainant filed his petition dated March 6, 2003. [23] On April 3, 2003, the respondent filed his Manifestation and Motion praying that the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors be reconsidered and set aside. [24] On April 30, 2003, the Court noted the IBP's denial of the complainant's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, and the respondent's Manifestation and Motion; and took cognizance of the March 6, 2003 petition of the complainant, and required the respondent to file his Comment. [25] On October 20, 2003, the Court took note of the respondent's Comment with Motion for Reconsideration, and required the complainant to file his Reply. [26] After requesting an extension of time to file his Reply, the complainant filed his Reply on December 8, 2003. [27] Ruling of the Court In its findings, the IBP concluded that the respondent was guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties to his client, and recommended that: ( a ) he be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition of his conduct would be dealt with more severely; and ( b ) he be ordered to return the sums of money totalling P513,000.00 he had received from the complainant. After reviewing the established circumstances of the case, the Court accepts the findings against the respondent but modifies the recommended penalty considering that his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility constituted deliberate defraudation of the client instead of mere negligence. Firstly, the respondent misled the complainant into thinking that it would be his law firm that was to take on the case. Secondly, despite the fact that he had intimated to the complainant that it would be highly unlikely to still have the adoption decree nullified due to the decree having long become final and executory, he nonethel