EN BANC
EN BANC
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
PER CURIAM:
Antecedents
By Complaint-Affidavit one filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on June twenty, two thousand seven, complainant Norma Nicolas sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jose Laki for violation of Canon one, Rules one point zero one and one point zero two; Canon ten, Rule ten point zero one; Canon fifteen, Rule fifteen point zero six; Canon sixteen, Rules sixteen point zero one and sixteen point zero three; and Canon eighteen, Rule eighteen point zero three, all of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She essentially alleged:
In November two thousand five, she asked Atty. Adoracion Umipig to handle the nullity of marriage case of her brother Joseph Darag, a Filipino based in Japan. But since Atty. Umipig worked with the government, she referred the matter to her friends in private practice. Respondent, an old friend and former officemate of hers, volunteered to handle the case.
Respondent informed her he would be filing the case in Balanga, Bataan where he had successfully handled and completed a similar petition in only three months. He charged a fee of one hundred thirty thousand pesos and assured her the annulment proceedings would be finished by the first week of April two thousand six.
About a month later, respondent fetched Atty. Umipig in Manila and met with her in Mabalacat City, Pampanga. There, she gave respondent the initial payment of one hundred thousand pesos which was discounted to ninety-five thousand pesos. Atty. Umipig was present when the payment was made.
In March two thousand six, respondent requested additional payment and reassured her that the case was almost finished. Thus, she had Atty. Umipig deposit twenty thousand pesos to the bank account of respondent's mother.
In April two thousand six, respondent told her and Atty. Umipig that Judge Vianzon who was presiding over the case was on leave. He nevertheless guaranteed that the case was almost done. But after the holy week, she could no longer contact respondent. Atty. Umipig, too, tried to contact him, but to no avail.
Atty. Umipig was eventually able to locate respondent but the latter simply made excuses. He claimed that Judge Vianzon was hesitant to issue a favorable decision but he managed to convince the judge to do it anyway. According to him, the sheriff was already serving copies of the decision to the National Statistics Office and the Local Civil Registrar in Nueva Ecija where Joseph's marriage took place. Thereafter, respondent became elusive once again.
In November two thousand six, she went to Balanga, Bataan to check on the status of Joseph's annulment case but discovered that no case was ever filed by respondent. She thus sought Atty. Umipig's help to compel respondent to return the money she had paid. Eventually, they were able to contact respondent who promised to return the money he received. But he never made good his promise. He, too, ignored the demand letter she sent him. 10
Hence, she now seeks respondent's disbarment for the latter's misrepresentations, deceitful conduct, and misappropriation of money entrusted him, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent failed to refute the charges against him.
First. Respondent failed to file any answer despite seeking an extension to file one until August sixteen, two thousand seven. About a decade later, when he was given a fresh period of fifteen days or until May nine, two thousand seventeen within which to file an answer, he squandered the opportunity anew.
Second. On respondent's manifestation-request, the investigating commissioner issued Order dated November eight, two thousand seventeen, giving respondent ten days to file his position paper. He failed to comply yet again.
Finally. Respondent failed to attend the clarificatory hearing on May four, two thousand eighteen where Atty. Umipig testified against him.