5. Gabino Tolentino and Flordeliza Tolentino vs Atty. So and Atty.

Ancheta

AC # 6387, July 19, 2016

FACTS: The case at bar is a disbarment case against Atty. Henry So (respondent #1) for neglect in handling a
case, and Atty. Ferdinand Ancheta (respondent #2) for extorting P200,000 from a client.

Flordeliza Tolentino (complainant) was a defendant in a case involving recovery of possession of a

parcel of land. The RTC rendered a decision against complainant, ordering her to vacate the land. While the
case was appealed to the CA, Atty. So replaced complainant’s counsel at that time. CA eventually affirmed the
RTC decision, in which complainants contended that they were neither informed of the decision nor were they
advised by Atty. So to elevate the case to the SC. As a result, they changed counsels from Atty. So to Atty.
Ancheta, whom they paid P30,000 as acceptance fee.

Atty. Ancheta allegedly promised them that there was still a remedy with the CA decision, mentioning
that he would file a “motion to reopen appeal case”. Atty. Ancheta also tricked them into paying him P200,000
for making arrangements with the CA justices who are handling their case. At first, complainants refused to
follow Atty. Ancheta’s plan since they lack funds and it violates the law. Nevertheless, they eventually agreed
when Atty. Ancheta said that this was the only way they can obtain a favorable judgment. They paid him and
deposited the amount in his bank account.

Unfortunately, no “motion to reopen case” was filed by Atty. Ancheta and the CA decision became final
and executory. Complainants now want their P200,000 refunded, but Atty. Ancheta did not heed their
demand. Eventually, complainants filed a disbarment case with the grounds already mentioned in the first
paragraph.

Atty. So countered that he was no longer connected with the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of
the DAR when the CA decision was promulgated, also alleging that he resigned to prepare for his hometown
elections. Moreover, it was standard procedure in the Bureau that once a handling lawyer resigns, the cases
that he is currently handling are reassigned to other lawyers of the Bureau.

Atty. Ancheta did not file a comment despite due notice. Eventually, the case was referred to the IBP
for investigation, report, and recommendation. Afterwards, only Atty. So filed his position paper while Atty.
Ancheta did not file anything, even on previous circumstances. IBP eventually made a resolution absolving
Atty. So for lack of evidence in the charge against him, while they recommended Atty. Ancheta’s disbarment
for being guilty of serious misconduct and deceit.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Atty. So should be absolved by the court for the charges held against him.
2. Whether or not Atty. Ancheta should be disbarred for his untoward actions against complainant.

HELD:

1. YES. Atty. So's appearance for complainant Flordeliza may be likened to that of a lawyer assigned to
handle a case for a private law firm's client. If the counsel resigns, the firm is simply bound to provide
a replacement. Similarly, upon Atty. So's resignation, the Director of the Bureau merely reassigned his
case assignment to other lawyers in the Bureau even without complainants' consent. While it would
have been best if he informed complainants regarding his resignation and case reassignment, it was
not required under law for him to do that.
2. YES. Atty. Ancheta should have very well known that a decision that has attained finality is no longer
open for reversal and should be respected. A lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy administration of
justice demands recognition that at a definite time, issues must be laid to rest and litigation ended. As
such, Ancheta should have advised complainants to accept the judgment of the Court ofAppeals and
accord respect to the just claim of the opposite party. He should have tempered his clients' propensity
 to litigate and save them from additional expense in pursuing their contemplated action. Instead, he
gave them confident assurances that the case could still be reopened and even furnished them a copy
of his prepared "motion to reopen case." Despite his representation that he would file the motion,
however, he did not do so.

As a servant of the law, Atty. Ancheta's primary duty was to obey the laws and promote respect for the
law and legal processes. Corollary to this duty is his obligation to abstain from dishonest or deceitful conduct,
as well as from "activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Atty.
Ancheta's advice involving corruption of judicial officers tramps the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and the judicial system and adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

A lawyer "must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber, which are not only conditions precedent
to his entrance to the Bar but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein." Atty.
Ancheta's deceit in dealing with his clients constitutes gross professional misconduct and violates his oath,
thus justifying his disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.