A.C. No.

11078 not fulfill her promise and did not show up for her
subsequent scheduled hearings in Branch 145.
VERLITA V. MERCULLO and RAYMOND
VEDANO, Complainants, vs. With their attempts to reach the respondent being in
ATTY. MARIE FRANCESE RAMON, Respondent. vain, Verlita and Raymond brought their disbarment
complaint in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
BERSAMIN, J.: (IBP).1âwphi1

FACTS: Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

In the period from 2002 to 2011, the National Home The respondent did not submit her answer when required
Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) sent several to do so. She also did not attend the mandatory
demand letters to Carmelita T. Vedaño1 regarding her conference set by the IBP despite notice. Hence, the
unpaid obligations secured by the mortgage covering her investigation proceeded ex parte.13
residential property in Novaliches, Caloocan City.
Carmelita authorized her children, Verlita Mercullo and The IBP Commissioner found the respondent to have
Raymond Vedaño (complainants herein), to inquire from violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
the NHMFC about the status of the obligations. Verlita Responsibility for engaging in deceitful conduct, and
and Raymond learned that their mother's arrears had recommended her suspension from the practice of law
amounted to P350,000.00, and that the matter of the for two years, and her return to the complainants of
mortgage was under the charge of respondent Atty. P350,000.00. with legal interest from December 2, 2013.
Ramon, but who was not around at that time.
Ruling of the Court
Carmelita received a letter from the sheriff of the RTC
stating that her property would be put up for auction in The Court declares the respondent guilty of dishonesty
July 2013. Verlita and Raymond thus went to the and deceit.
NHMFC to see the respondent, who advised them about
their right to redeem the property within one year from The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and
the foreclosure.3 duties of every lawyer. Any violation of the oath may be
punished with either disbarment, or suspension from the
In August 2013, Verlita and Raymond called up the practice of law, or other commensurate disciplinary
respondent, and expressed their intention to redeem the action.16 Every lawyer must at no time be wanting in
property by paying the redemption price. probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions
precedent to his admission to the Bar, but are also
After the respondent had oriented them on the procedure essential for his continued membership in the Law
for redemption, the complainants handed P350,000.00 to Profession.17 Any conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
the respondent, who signed an acknowledgment constitutes a violation of his oath.
receipt.4 The respondent issued two acknowledgment
receipts for the redemption price and for litigation The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath
expenses,5 presenting to the complainants her NHMFC by receiving money from the complainants after having
identification card. Before leaving them, she promised to made them believe that she could assist them in ensuring
inform them as soon as the documents for redemption the redemption in their mother's behalf. She was
were ready for their mother's signature.6 convincing about her ability to work on the redemption
because she had worked in the NHFMC. She did not
Verlita and Raymond went to the NHMFC to follow up inform them soon enough, however, that she had
on the redemption, but discovered that the respondent meanwhile ceased to be connected with the agency. It
had already ceased to be connected with the NHMFC. was her duty to have so informed them. She further
On September 20, 2013, they met with her at Branch 145 misled them about her ability to realize the redemption
of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City where she by falsely informing them about having started the
was attending a hearing. She informed them that the redemption process. She concealed from them the real
redemption was under process. story that she had not even initiated the redemption
proceedings that she had assured them she would do.
Verlita and Raymond finally went to see the Clerk of Everything she did was dishonest and deceitful in order
Court of the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City to to have them part with the substantial sum of
inquire on the status of the redemption. There, they P350,000.00. She took advantage of the complainants
discovered that the respondent had not deposited the who had reposed their full trust and confidence in her
redemption price and had not filed the letter of intent for ability to perform the task by virtue of her being a
redeeming the property.10 lawyer. Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably
eroded public trust in the Legal Profession.
Verlita and Raymond again went to Branch 145 of the
Regional Trial Court in Makati City where the As a lawyer, the respondent was proscribed from
respondent had a hearing, and handed to her their engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
demand letter requiring her to return the amount she had conduct in her dealings with others, especially clients
received for the redemption.11 She acknowledged the whom she should serve with competence and
letter and promised to return the money by depositing diligence.18 Her duty required her to maintain fealty to
the amount in Verlita's bank account. However, she did them, binding her not to neglect the legal matter
entrusted to her. Thus, her neglect in connection
therewith rendered her liable.19 Moreover, the unfulfilled ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON WAS
promise of returning the money and her refusal to SUSPENDSED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW
communicate with the complainants on the matter of her FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS EFFECTIVE.
engagement aggravated the neglect and dishonesty THE COURT ALSO ORDERS her to return to the
attending her dealings with the complainants. complainants the sum of P350,000.00 within 30 days
from notice, plus legal interest of 6% per
The respondent's conduct patently breached Rule 1.01, annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional full payment.
Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey

the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for
legal processes.1âwphi1

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the

unlawful act or omission of the respondent within the
coverage of Rule 1. 01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.20The Code exacted from her not only a
firm respect for the law and legal processes but also the
utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with
clients and the moneys entrusted by them pursuant to
their fiduciary relationship.21

Yet another dereliction of the respondent was her

wanton disregard of the several notices sent to her by the
IBP in this case. Such disregard could only be wrong
because it reflected her undisguised contempt of the
proceedings of the IBP, a body that the Court has
invested with the authority to investigate the disbarment
complaint against her. She thus exhibited her
irresponsibility as well as her utter disrespect for the
Court and the rest of the Judiciary.

The respondent deserves severe chastisement and

appropriate sanctions. In this regard, the IBP Board of
Governors recommended her suspension for two years
from the practice of law, and her return of the amount of
P350,000.00 to the complainants. The recommended
penalty is not commensurate to the gravity of the
misconduct committed. She merited a heavier sanction
of suspension from the practice of law for five years. Her
professional misconduct warranted a longer suspension
from the practice of law because she had caused material
prejudice to the clients' interest.23 She should somehow
be taught to be more ethical and professional in dealing
with trusting clients like the complainants and their
mother, who were innocently too willing to repose their
utmost trust in her abilities as a lawyer and in her
trustworthiness as a legal professional. In this
connection, we state that the usual mitigation of the
recommended penalty by virtue of the misconduct being
her first offense cannot be carried out in her favor
considering that she had disregarded the several notices
sent to her by the IBP in this case. As to the return of the
P350,000.00 to the complainant, requiring her to
restitute with legal interest is only fair and just because
she did not comply in the least with her ethical
undertaking to work on the redemption of the property of
the mother of the complainants. In addition, she is
sternly warned against a similar infraction in the future;
otherwise, the Court will have her suffer a more severe
penalty.