A.C. No.

11149

LAURENCE D. PUNLA and MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. ELEONOR MARA VILLA-ONA,, Respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

The present administrative case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed

with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBPCBD) by complainants Laurence D. Punla and Marilyn Santos against
respondent Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, charging the latter with violation of
the lawyer's oath, for neglecting her clients' interests.

Factual Background

The facts, as culled from the disbarment complaint, are summarized in the
Report and Recommendation2 of Investigating Commissioner Ricardo M.
Espina viz.:

In a complaint-affidavit filed on 15 January 2013, complainants alleged that

they got to know respondent lawyer sometime in January 2012 when they
requested her to notarize a Deed of Sale; that subsequently, they broached
the idea to respondent that they intend (sic) to file two (2) annulment cases
and they wanted respondent to represent them; that respondent committed
to finish the two (2) annulment cases within six (6) months from full
payment; that the agreed lawyer's fee for the two annulment cases is
P350,000.00; that the ₱350,000.00 was paid in full by complainants, as
follows: ₱100,000.00 on 27 January 2012 as evidenced by respondent's
Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 55749 of even date (Annex "A"); ₱150,000.00
on 28 January 2012 as evidenced by respondent's Official Receipt (O.R.)
No. 56509 of even date (Annex "B"); ₱50,000.00 on 14 March 2012
personally handed to respondent lawyer and evidenced by respondent's
handwritten acknowledgement receipt of same date (Annex "C"); and,
₱50,000.00 on 15 March 2012 deposited to respondent's Metrobank
account no. 495-3-49509141-5 (Annex "D").

On the commitment of respondent that she will (sic) finish the cases in six
(6) months, complainants followed up their cases in September 2012 or
about 6 months from their last payment in March 2012. They were ignored
by respondent. On 25 September 2012, complainants sent a letter (Annex
"E") to respondent demanding that the ₱350,000.00 they paid her be
refunded in full within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. In a
Certification dated 07 November 2012 (Annex "F"), the Philpost of
Dasmarinas, Cavite, attested that complainants' letter was received by
respondent on 01 October 2012. No refi.md was made by respondent.3

In an Order4 dated January 25, 2013, the IBP directed respondent to file
her Answer within 15 days. No answer was filed. A Mandatory
Conference/Hearing was set on December 4, 20135 but respondent did not
appear, so it was reset to January 22, 2014.6 However, respondent again
failed to attend the mandatory conference/hearing as
scheduled. Hence, in an Order7 dated January 22, 2014, the mandatory
conference was terminated and both parties were directed to submit their
verified position papers.

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner

The Investigating Commissioner was of the opinion that respondent is

guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit:8

There is clear violation of Canons 17 and 18, Canons of Professional

Responsibility. These canons, quoted hereunder, [state]:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Of particular concern is Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to always keep the client informed
of the developments in his case and to respond whenever the client
requests for information. Respondent has miserably failed to comply with
this Canon.9

In addition, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent has

been charged with several infractions. Thus:
Moreover, verification conducted by this Office shows that this is not the
first time that respondent lawyer has been administratively charged before
this Office. As shown in the table below, respondent is involved in the
following active cases:

COMPLAINANTS CASE STATUS PENALTY WHEN

NO. FILED
Ten (10)
consolidated A.C. Pending with Suspension
cases: No. Supreme Court
1. Felisa 6369
Amistoso, et al. A.C.
2. Anita Lagman No.
3. Isidro H. 6371
Montoya A.C.
4. NoelAngcao No.
5. Mercedes 6458
Bayan A.C.
6. Rustica No.
Canuel 6459
7. Anita Canuel A.C.
8. Elmer Canuel No.
9. Evangeline 6460
Sangalang A.C.
10. Felisa No.
Amistoso 6462
A.C.
No.
6457
A.C.
No.
6463
A.C.
No.
6464
A.C.
No.
6469
 11. Beatrice CBD Pending with Suspension July
Yatco, et al. Case Supreme Court 26,
No. 2010
10-
2733
12. Nonna CBD For report and May
Guiterrez Case recommendation 23,
No. 2012
12-
3444
13. Bienvenida CBD For report and August
Flor Suarez Case recommendation 01,
No. 2012
12-
3534

Clearly, respondent lawyer has been a serial violator of the Canons of

Professional Responsibility as shown in the thirteen (13) pending cases
filed against her. Add to that the present case and that places the total
pending administrative cases against respondent at fourteen (14). That
these 14 cases were filed on different dates and by various individuals is
substantial proof that respondent has the propensity to violate her lawyer's
oath- and has not changed in her professional dealing with the public.10

Consequently, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that

respondent be disbarred and ordered to pay complainants the amount of
₱350,000.00 with legal interest until fully paid.11

Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors

The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XXI-2015-15612 dated

February 20, 2015, resolved to adopt the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner as well as the recommended penalty of disbarment.

The issue in this case is whether respondent should be disbarred.

Our Ruling
The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP but must,
however, modify the penalty imposed in view of respondent's previous
disbarment.

Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court provides the penalties of

disbarment and suspension as follows:

Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds

therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do x x x.

Here, there is no question as to respondent's guilt.1âwphi1 It is clear from

the records that respondent violated her lawyer's oath and code of conduct
when she withheld from complainants the amount of ₱350,000.00 given to
her, despite her failure to render the necessary legal services, and after
complainants demanded its return.

It cannot be stressed enough that once a lawyer takes up the cause of a

client, that lawyer is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence and
zeal, especially when he/she accepts it for a fee. The lawyer owes fidelity
to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed upon him/her.13 Moreover, a lawyer's failure to return upon
demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the
presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her own
use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by
his/her client.14

What is more, this Court cannot overlook the reality that several cases had
been filed against respondent, as pointed out by the IBP.1âwphi1 In fact,
one such case eventually led to the disbarment of respondent. In Suarez v.
Maravilla-Ona, 15 the Court meted out the ultimate penalty of disbarment
and held that the misconduct of respondent was aggravated by her
unjustified refusal to obey the orders of the IBP directing her to file an
answer and to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference. This
constitutes blatant disrespect towards the IBP and amounts to conduct
unbecoming a lawyer.

In the same case, the Court took note of the past disbarment complaints
that had been filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona viz.:

x x x In A.C. No. 10107 entitled Beatrice C. Yatco, represented by her

AttorneyIn- Fact, Marivic Yatco v. Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, the
complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for issuing
several worthless checks as rental payments for the complainant's property
and for refusing to vacate the said property, thus forcing the latter to file an
ejectment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona. The IBP required Atty.
Maravilla-Ona to file her Answer, but she failed to do so. Neither did she
make an appearance during the scheduled mandatory conference. In its
Resolution dated February 13, 2013, the IBP found Atty. Maravilla-Ona
guilty of serious misconduct[,] and for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code. The Court later adopted and approved the IBP's findings in its
Resolution of September 15, 2014, and suspended Atty. Maravilla-Ona
from the practice of law for a period of one year.

In yet another disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona, docketed as

A.C. No. 10944[,] and entitled Norma M Gutierrez v. Atty. Eleonor
Maravilla-Ona, the complainant therein alleged that she engaged the
services of Atty. Maravilla-Ona and gave her the amount of ₱80,000.00 for
the filing of a case in court. However, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to file the
case, prompting the complainant to withdraw from the engagement and to
demand the return of the amount she paid. Atty. Maravilla-Ona returned
₱15,000.00[,] and executed a promissory note to pay the remaining
₱65,000.00. However, despite several demands, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed
to refund completely the complainant's money. Thus, a complaint for
disbarment was filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for grave misconduct,
gross negligence and incompetence. But again, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed
to file her Answer and [to] appear in the mandatory conference before the
IBP. The IBP found that Atty. Maravilla-Ona violated Canon 16, Rule 16.03
of the Code [of Professional Responsibility] and recommended her
suspension for a period of five (5) years, considering her previous
infractions. The Court, however, reduced Atty. Maravilla-Ona's penalty to
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely. She was also ordered to return the complainant's money.
Clearly, Atty. Maravilla-Ona exhibits the habit of violating her oath as a
lawyer and the Code [of Professional Responsibility], as well as defying the
processes of the IBP. The Court cannot allow her blatant disregard of the
Code [of Professional Responsibility] and her sworn duty as a member of
the Bar to continue. She had been warned that a similar violation [would]
merit a more severe penalty, and yet, her reprehensible conduct has,
again, brought embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession.16

Back to the case at bar: While indeed respondent's condemnable acts

ought to merit the penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in
this jurisdiction we do not impose double disbarment.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines and FINDS respondent ATIY. ELEONOR MARA
VILLA-ONA GUILTY of gross and continuing violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and accordingly FINED ₱40,000.00.
Respondent is also ORDERED to PAY complainants the amount of
₱350,000.00, with 12% interest from the date of demand until June 30,
2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.17 This is
without prejudice to the complainants' filing of the appropriate criminal
case, if they so desire.

Furnish a copy of this Decision to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which
shall append the same to the personal record of respondent; to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator,
which shall circulate the same to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
 PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS- See separate opinion

BERNABE MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On official leave)

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA ALFREDO BENJAMIN S.
Associate Justice CAGUIOA
Associate Justice

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANDRES B. REYES, JR. ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Footnotes
*
On official leave
1
Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2
Id. at 20-24.
3
Id. at 21.
4
Id. at 10.
5
Id. at 11.
6
Id. at 13.
7
Id. at l5.
8
Id. at23.
9
Id. at 23-24.
10
Id. at 22-23.
11
Id. at 24.
12
Id. at 18.
13
Olayta-Camba v. Atty. Bongon, 757 Phil. 1, 5-6 (2015).
14
Llunar v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 6484, June 16, 2015, 757 SCRA 614,
620.
15
A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016.
16
Id. at 6-7.
17
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).