Atty. Romulo Ricafort was hired by Adelita R Llunar in 2000 to recover a parcel of land owned by her family. She paid him P95,000 but he did not file any case. Three years later, she learned he had been indefinitely suspended from practice since 2002. Though he claimed another lawyer filed a case, Adelita did not hire that lawyer and the property could no longer be redeemed. The court found Atty. Ricafort guilty of grave misconduct for practicing while suspended and lacking candor with his client. He was disbarred for dishonestly accepting the case despite knowing he could not practice law.
Atty. Romulo Ricafort was hired by Adelita R Llunar in 2000 to recover a parcel of land owned by her family. She paid him P95,000 but he did not file any case. Three years later, she learned he had been indefinitely suspended from practice since 2002. Though he claimed another lawyer filed a case, Adelita did not hire that lawyer and the property could no longer be redeemed. The court found Atty. Ricafort guilty of grave misconduct for practicing while suspended and lacking candor with his client. He was disbarred for dishonestly accepting the case despite knowing he could not practice law.
Atty. Romulo Ricafort was hired by Adelita R Llunar in 2000 to recover a parcel of land owned by her family. She paid him P95,000 but he did not file any case. Three years later, she learned he had been indefinitely suspended from practice since 2002. Though he claimed another lawyer filed a case, Adelita did not hire that lawyer and the property could no longer be redeemed. The court found Atty. Ricafort guilty of grave misconduct for practicing while suspended and lacking candor with his client. He was disbarred for dishonestly accepting the case despite knowing he could not practice law.
Facts: In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of Atty. Romulo Ricafort for the recovery of a parcel of land owned by the Banez family but which was fraudulently registered to a different name. The lot was the subject of foreclosure proceedings, hence, Adelita gave to Atty. Ricafort the amount of P95,000.00 (partial redemption fee, as filing fees, and attorneys fees). Three years later, complainant learned that Atty. Ricafort did not file any case with the RTC of Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the return of P95,000.00. The latter averred that there was a complaint for annulment of title filed against Ard Cervantes, though not him, but by another lawyer. Thus, he was willing to refund the amount less the P50,000.00 which he gave to Atty. Abitria. Adelita refused to recognize the case filed by Atty. Abitria, insisting she did not hire him as counsel; also, the complaint was filed three years late and the property cannot be redeemed from the bank anymore. She also learned that Atty. Ricafort was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law since 2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus she suspected it was the reason why another lawyer filed the case. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort is guilty of misconduct for practicing law under indefinite suspension? Ruling: Yes. The respondent is found guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT. The respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the complainant that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The respondent should have disclosed this fact at the time he was approached by the complainant for his services. Canon 15 of the CPR states that “a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.” The respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when he accepted the complainant’s case despite knowing that he could not and should not practice law.