A.C. No. 11064. September 27, 2016
Bienvenida Flor Suarez, Complainant, vs. Atty. Eleonora A. Maravilla-Ona, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bienvenida Flor Suarez engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Eleonora A. Maravilla-Ona in February 2011 to facilitate the transfer of a land title. The agreed professional fee was P48,000. Suarez paid the amount in full through three payments, evidenced by official receipts. Despite the full payment, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to perform any work on the case or provide updates to her client. Consequently, Suarez decided to cancel the engagement and requested a refund of her money, to which the respondent agreed.
After a year of waiting, Atty. Maravilla-Ona issued a check for P58,000 to Suarez. However, the check was dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. Despite subsequent promises, the respondent failed to return the money. Suarez, then 84 years old, filed an administrative complaint. Atty. Maravilla-Ona did not file an Answer to the complaint nor appear at the mandatory conference set by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), leading to her being declared in default.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Eleonora A. Maravilla-Ona should be held administratively liable for her actions in relation to her professional engagement with complainant Bienvenida Flor Suarez.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation and disbarred Atty. Maravilla-Ona. The Court found her guilty of gross misconduct and multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Her actions demonstrated a clear breach of her sworn duties as a lawyer. First, she failed to perform any legal service for which she was fully paid, violating Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the CPR, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve a client with competence and diligence. Her complete inaction and failure to apprise her client of the case status constituted gross negligence.
Second, her issuance of a worthless check to refund the client’s money constituted deceitful and dishonest conduct, a direct violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s failure to return a client’s money upon demand gives rise to a presumption of misappropriation, which is a serious offense. Her subsequent failure to honor the check or make alternative payment aggravated her misconduct. Her disregard of the disciplinary proceedings by not filing an Answer and not attending the mandatory conference further demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal system and the IBP. Considering the totality of her actions—neglect of duty, issuance of a worthless check, failure to account for and return client funds, and non-cooperation with the investigation—the Court found disbarment to be the appropriate penalty. She was also ordered to restitute the amount of P58,000 to the complainant.