EN BANC
EN BANC
DECISION
This is a Petition 1 for disbarment filed by Nenita Ko (Nenita) against respondents Atty. Ladimir Ian G. Maduramente (Atty. Ladimir) and Atty. Mercy Grace L. Maduramente (Atty. Mercy; collectively, respondent lawyers) for committing dishonest acts and grave misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Factual Antecedents
The Factual Antecedents
Nenita alleged that sometime in July two thousand six, Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy informed her that the Manila Prince Hotel in San Marcelino, Manila, owned by the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation and affiliated with Manila Hotel, was for sale. Respondent lawyers allegedly made representations that:
a. They knew the President of Manila Hotel, former Senator Joey Lina;
b. The fifty million pesos purchase price was a reasonable consideration, and lower than the fair market value of the property;
c. They can get a preferential rate because Atty. Mercy had close relations with the hotel owners since she worked at the Malacanang Palace;
d. The hotel is immediately operational without any legal issues, complete with necessary equipment, furniture, and fixtures;
e. The payment scheme is on installment basis which made it more affordable and not burdensome on the part of Nenita;
f. The return of investment will only be for a short period since the hotel business is booming;
g. A mere five million pesos as down payment is required for Nenita to possess and control the hotel, subject to the payment of the balance in accordance with the agreed payment scheme; and h. Nenita would only pay thirty-two million pesos since respondent lawyers will pay the balance of the purchase price as part of their joint/conjugal investment as industrial partners.
Persuaded by the representations of respondent lawyers, Nenita agreed to buy the hotel. She later issued three checks in the amounts of five million pesos, six million pesos, and another six million pesos, all payable to the order of Atty. Mercy. Upon receipt of the checks, Atty. Mercy executed an Acknowledgment to Nenita.
A few days later, Nenita inquired from respondent lawyers about the status of the sale. To her dismay, respondent lawyers informed her that there would be a delay in the turnover of the hotel as they were still working on the documents for its transfer. Nenita then asked Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy to give her a list of the inventoried equipment, fixtures, and furniture in the hotel, but no list was given to her. Nenita thus suspected that something is amiss in the sale transaction.
Upon inquiry with her financial consultant, she discovered that no sale transaction was concluded with respect to the said hotel.
Nenita thus confronted respondent lawyers about her discovery. Still, they insisted that the hotel was validly sold to her and that she had nothing to worry about. However, when Nenita demanded from them to produce the documents of the purported sale, they failed to comply.
Instead, Atty. Mercy berated Nenita for attributing to her the botched sale transaction. She also bragged about her alleged connections in the Office of the President in order to dissuade Nenita from filing any complaint against her and Atty. Ladimir. Consequently, Nenita asked respondent lawyers to just return the two remaining checks to her which they did.
Since the first check in the amount of five million pesos was already encashed, Nenita requested Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy to return the value thereof. However, Atty. Ladimir admitted that they already used the said amount. Respondent lawyers then requested for some time to return the money to which Nenita agreed.
Unfortunately, Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy still failed to return the amount despite repeated demands prompting Nenita to inform them of her intention of filing a case against them. Atty. Ladimir pleaded for additional time to return the amount.
Eventually, respondent lawyers returned the amount of five hundred thousand pesos to Nenita. As to the remaining four million five hundred thousand pesos, Atty. Ladimir executed a Deed of Undertakings stating that the five hundred thousand pesos shall be paid through bank transfer to Nenita's account, while the remaining four million pesos would be covered by a check dated September thirty, two thousand seven. Pursuant to the Undertaking, Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy transferred five hundred thousand pesos to Nenita's account. Sadly, however, the check issued by Atty. Ladimir in the amount of four million pesos was dishonored due to closed account.
On November seven, two thousand seven, Nenita, through her counsel, sent a final demand letter to Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy asking them to pay the remaining four million pesos. But her demand fell on deaf ears. Hence, this complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ladimir and Atty. Mercy for utter violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In her Answer, Atty. Mercy denied that she and Atty. Ladimir convinced Nenita to purchase or invest in the Manila Prince Hotel for fifty million pesos. She averred that Nenita expressed her interest in purchasing not the hotel but the M/V Asian Princess, also known as Manila Floating Restaurant. However, it was Atty. Ladimir who actually offered it to Nenita who received the documents of the restaurant.
Atty. Mercy claimed that what she actually offered to sell to Nenita were shares of stocks of the Manila Prince Corporation. She also disclaimed Nenita's allegation that she made representations that she could get a preferential rate because of her work connections. Lastly, Atty. Mercy insisted that she did not encash the check in the amount of five million pesos. Neither did she own the bank account in which the check was deposited.
Atty. Ladimir also filed his Answer wherein he asserted that it was Atty. Mercy who mentioned to Nenita the sale of Manila Prince Hotel in the amount of fifty million pesos. However, he himself did not get involved in the sale transaction to avoid conflict of interest.
who mentioned to Nenita the sale of Manila Prince Hotel in the amount of fifty million pesos. However, he himself did not get involved in the sale transaction to avoid conflict of interest.
Atty. Ladimir narrated that it was Atty. Mercy who persuaded Nenita to enter into a partnership agreement because of her connections. Atty. Ladimir claimed that he had no idea about the details of the transaction and that he only learned that the deal materialized when he was informed by his office staff, Flordeliza Sarmiento, that Nenita already issued postdated checks to Atty. Mercy.
Atty. Ladimir explained that he suspected that something went wrong when Atty. Mercy presented a Special Power of Attorney stating the amount of fifty million U.S. dollars instead of Philippine pesos and when Nenita demanded the return of the five million pesos, the amount of the first check that was encashed, as well as the other checks she issued. Atty. Ladimir professed that he did not know where the initial payment of five million pesos was used. All he knew was that Atty. Mercy failed to make good her promise to return the same.
One day, Nenita met with Atty. Ladimir demanding for the reimbursement of her payment. He called Atty. Mercy who agreed to refund the remaining balance of four million pesos within two months. To pacify Nenita, Atty. Ladimir issued a check in her favor for the sole purpose of showing it to her husband. He informed her that the check would be replaced by an actual refund as soon as it becomes available.