Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame vs. Atty. Edgar s. Orro - Digest and Full Case

A.C. No. 10945 (formerly CBD 09-2507) February 23, 2016 ANGELITO RAMISCAL a! MERCE"ES OR#AME, complainants, $%. ATT&. E"GAR S. ORRO, respondent.

of %rofessional Responsi#ility the recommended penalty is condign and proportionate to the o+ense charged and esta#lished #ecause his display of disrespectful de,ance of the orders of the "3% aggravated his misconduct.

"IGESTE" CASE FACTS'Complainants Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame were engaged in the legal services of respondent Atty. dgar S. Orro to handle a case in which they were the defendants see!ing the declaration of the nullity of title to a land in "sa#ela. $pon receiving the % &''''.'' acceptance fee Atty. Orro handled the case it reached the R*C and was decided in their favor. *he plainti+s appealed the case to the CA and ,led their appellants- #rief. $pon the receipt thereof Atty. Orro reuested from the Spouses an additional amount of % /''''.'' for the preparation and su#mission of their appellees- #rief the Spouses o#liged. 0ater on the R*C decision was reversed #y CA Atty. Orro failed to inform the Spouses on the said decision in which the latter only learned from their neigh#ors. *hey endeavored to communicate with Atty. Orro #ut their e+orts ended in vain. 1hen they have ,nally contacted him Atty. Orro as!ed them an additional %2'''.'' for him to ,le a motion for reconsideration al#eit such motion would already #e #elated. ven so the Spouses paid him the amount sought. *o their dismay they discovered that Atty. Orro did not ,led the said motion and the decision attained ,nality eventually resulting to the loss of the titled property. *he Spouses ,led an administrative complaint against Atty. Orro the Court referred the complaint to "3% for appropriate evaluation report and recommendation. 4espite several notices the Spouses failed to appear the scheduled mandatory conferences set #y "3% nor su#mitted their evidences. *he "3% Commissioner rendered his ,ndings to the e+ect that Atty. Orro violated Canon &5 Rules &5.'/ and &5.'6 of the Code of the %rofessional Responsi#ility and recommended a one7year suspension. 0ater on the "3% 3oard of 8overnors adopted the report of the "3% Commissioner #ut modi,ed his recommendation of increasing the penalty of suspension for two years. ISS(E' 1hether or not Atty. Orro did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of the Spouses Ramiscals. )EL"' 9es. Atty. Orro did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of the Spouses Ramiscals. *here can #e no uestion that a lawyer is guilty of misconduct su:cient to ;ustify his suspension or dis#arment if he so acts as to #e unworthy of the trust and con,dence involved in his o:cial oath and is found to #e wanting in that honesty and integrity that must characterize the mem#ers of the 3ar in the performance of their professional duties. 3ased on all the circumstances in this case the Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the "3% for for thearespondent-s from the of law period of twosuspension years. Although thepractice Court imposed a si