ELENA VDA. DE ECO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTORNEY BENJAMIN RAMIREZ, RESPONDENT.

Elena Vda. de Eco versus Attorney Benjamin Ramirez

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or suspension filed with the Supreme Court against a practicing lawyer. Elena Vda. de Eco, an illiterate widow from Sorsogon, accuses Attorney Benjamin Ramirez of deceiving her into thumbmarking a blank piece of paper, which he later made to appear as a receipt for the full amount of a death compensation award. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats a lawyer's act of defrauding a poor and illiterate client, and because it confirms that a disciplinary investigation does not simply die when the complainant loses interest and stops appearing.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Supreme Court on May 17, 1976. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines took up the investigation, and Investigating Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas rendered a report on March 15, 1993 finding the respondent guilty of acts not befitting a member of the bar. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted and approved that report, and even increased the recommended penalty from six months to one year of suspension. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which reviewed the report and rendered its own resolution.

Facts

In January 1966, Elena Vda. de Eco sued the Hapseng Bakery and Grocery and its insurer, Communications Insurance Company, for the death of her husband while in the bakery's employ. Attorney Benjamin Ramirez was then counsel for the insurance company. On December 19, 1975, the Workmen's Compensation Commission office at Naga rendered a decision, which was forwarded for review.

Sometime in January 1976, the widow and her daughter Beata Elona went to the insurance company's office to follow up the case. Attorney Ramirez met them and told them the company was not liable, but that it would help by giving 650 pesos as limos, or alms. He asked her to secure a residence certificate, and after she did, she received the money only after she thumbmarked a blank piece of paper, with her daughter signing as witness. On January 29, 1976, the Commission decided in her favor and ordered the bakery and the insurance company to pay, jointly and severally, the sum of 4,880 pesos.

After a writ of execution was issued, the widow and a deputy sheriff from Manila went to the insurance office, but were told to return because Attorney Ramirez was out. On April 28, 1976, they returned, and the lawyer informed them that the 4,880 pesos had already been paid to her on January 15, 1976. In his answer, the respondent admitted meeting her in January 1976 but denied giving only 650 pesos, claiming she signed a receipt on January 15, 1976 for 4,880 pesos and not a blank piece of paper. Both parties thus admitted the existence of a receipt prepared on January 15, 1976.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Ramirez made it appear that complainant signed a receipt on January 15, 1976 for 4,880 pesos as full payment of her claim, when in truth she received only 650 pesos.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct in his office as attorney, warranting suspension from the practice of law.
• Whether or not the investigation may proceed despite the complainant's failure to appear and prosecute her complaint.

Applicable Provisions

Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office.

This is the provision under which the respondent's act of defrauding an illiterate complainant was punished.

Section 5 of Rule 139-B provides:

No 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.

This provision allowed the Integrated Bar to continue the investigation even after the complainant could no longer be located.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the respondent deceived the complainant. The Investigating Commissioner reasoned that the January 15, 1976 receipt could not have reflected the full amount of 4,880 pesos, because the Commission's award was rendered only on January 29, 1976. As the commissioner put it, the receipt could not have anticipated the award "not unless the insurance company or respondent were mind-readers or were forewarned of an adverse judgment which are both unlikely." The respondent also failed to substantiate his claim of payment, as he did not present the actual receipts, true copies of the encashed check, or the witness he named. By preponderance of evidence, the Court held it amply proved that the respondent deceived the complainant by making it appear that she received 4,880 pesos, or more than what she actually received.

On the second issue, the Court held that this act of defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her husband's death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable and should not be viewed lightly. It degrades the lawyer and besmirches the honorable profession.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the continuation of the investigation. Under Rule 139-B, the Integrated Bar cannot dismiss outright a complaint against a member of the bar simply because the complainant has lost interest, especially where prima facie evidence exists. The respondent's verified answer and his admissions during the hearings constituted sufficient evidence for a just disposition.

Doctrine

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in his office as attorney. A lawyer who defrauds an illiterate client of the proceeds of a judgment commits deceit and gross misconduct, and the penalty is suspension from the practice of law. A disciplinary investigation is not terminated by the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute, especially where prima facie evidence of misconduct exists.

Disposition

The Court found respondent Attorney Benjamin Ramirez guilty of acts not befitting a member of the bar and suspended him from the practice of law for one year from receipt of the resolution.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a lawyer who deceives an illiterate client into signing away her judgment award commits deceit and gross misconduct under Section 27 of Rule 138, punishable by suspension. Examiners use this case to test the rule that a disciplinary investigation survives the complainant's desistance under Section 5 of Rule 139-B.