Businos v. Ricafort

Facts:1. Atty. Ricafort represented the plaintiff, Businos hereafter, in a civil case where he was given a special power of attorney which includes the power to demand, collect and receipt for any and all sums of money on behalf of the plaintiff.2. Atty. Ricafort was authorized by Busino to withdraw P35K, 30K from the Clerk of Court and 5K rental fee from Oas High School, with the instruction to deposit the same in her husbands savings account at the PNB. a. The Clerk of Court informed Businos that the money has already been withdrawn but there was no amount deposited in her account. b. She demanded from him to give her the money, but he informed her that he had already spent the same.c. He promised, though, to pay her the said amount. d. Despite several demands, both from her and her lawyer, respondent failed to make good his promise to give her the money he withdrew.3. Businos filed a criminal case for estafa and an administrative case against respondent. On their third hearing of the estafa case sometime in 1995, respondent came with the money and paid complainant inside the courtroom. a. Because of this development, she did not anymore pursue the estafa case against respondent. b. She has no intention, however, of withdrawing the instant complaint.4. She further testified that respondent demanded from her the sum of P2,000.00 for the bond required in the civil case. Respondent did not give her a receipt for the said amount. Respondent gave back the P2,000.00 to complainant.5. The only evidence that Businos was able to provide are those pertaining to the 30K withdrawn by the respondent from the clerk of court. Hence, the amount illegally used is pegged at 30K and not 35K as posited by the plaintiff.6. The Bar Confidant recommended 1 year suspension:1. Respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their consent. 2. His belated payment of the amount he illegally used and fraudulently obtained do not relieve him from any liability.

SC:1. While the findings are in order, the penalty recommended is not commensurate to respondent's infractions. Plainly, respondent breached Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.2. Respondent's transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the noble profession to which he belongs, for it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence3. The Court Resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT from the practice of law.