November 7, 2017
A.C. No. 10532
REYNALDO A. CABUELLO (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY BEATRIZ CABUELLO CABUTIN
, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. EDITHA P. TALABOC, Respondent
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
On October 12, 2010, complainant Reynaldo A. Cabuello filed an administrative complaint against
respondent Atty. Editha P. Talaboc with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Complainant engaged the services of respondent to represent his parents who were the.accused in
Criminal Cases Nos. CC-2007-1635 and CC-2007-1636, entitled People of the Philippines vs.
Alejandro and Cecilia Cabuello, which cases were pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Calbiga, Samar, Branch 33. Alejandro and Cecilia Cabuello were charged with the crime of qualified
theft of coconuts.
In his Complaint,1 complainant stated that respondent, with postal address at No. 185 EDSA, Wack
Wack, Greenhills East, Mandaluyong City, neglected the criminal cases of his parents. Complainant
alleged that he paid for the legal services of respondent, but she did not attend any hearing. She
also failed to file the necessary complaint against the policemen (who arrested the accused) as
agreed upon by them.
Complainant alleged that he paid for respondent's legal services as follows: (1) ₱20,000.00 for filing
fee, appearance fee and transportation expenses of respondent and her assistant, given on August
21, 2007; (2) ₱20,000.00 for respondent's acceptance fee, given on October 19, 2007; (3)
₱l0,000.00 for the motion and affidavit of waiver, given on November 7, 2007; (4) ₱19,000.00,
allegedly for the additional plane fare of respondent and her assistant, as there was no longer any
promotional fare, given on December 16, 2007; (5) ₱15,000.00 for the criminal case to be filed
against the police officers who arrested the accused, given on January 13, 2008 and July 16, 2008;
(6) ₱8,500.00, allegedly for the fare of respondent and her assistant, including taxi fare and food at
the airport, given on February 4, 2008; (7) ₱2,500.00 for penalty, as they were not able to use their
plane tickets, given on February 4, 2008; and (8) ₱2,500.00 for payment of a motion, given on April
18, 2008 (totaling ₱97,500.00.).
Complainant alleged that because respondent did not attend the hearings of the case, he was forced
to go back and forth from Manila to the province for 10 months to attend to the cases of his parents.
Every time he went home to the province, he spent ₱5,000.00 for his bus and plane fares and
₱l,000.00 for the van. He spent a total amount of about ₱150,000.00 due to the negligence of
respondent.
Unsatisfied with respondent's legal services, complainant sent respondent a demand letter2 dated
February 15, 2009 and a second demand letter3 dated September 13, 2010, asking respondent to
return the payments given to her, but respondent disregarded his demand letters.
Complainant stated that he filed this complaint so the respondent will not repeat her negligence of
duty toward her client's case and for the return of the payments given to respondent, because she
failed to fulfill her legal obligation toward his parents as their lawyer.
On October 13, 2010, the IBP Director for Bar Discipline ordered respondent to file her Answer
within 15 days from notice. However, respondent failed to file her answer despite receipt of the
order.4 Hence, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez set the hearing of the case ex-
parte on January 21, 2011.5 On the said date, only the complainant and his counsel appeared. As
there was no showing that respondent received notice of the said hearing, the same was cancelled
and reset to March 4, 2011.6 On March 4, 2011, complainant and his counsel appeared, and
respondent's representative, Marivic Alusitain, also appeared. Respondent's representative
manifested to the Commission that the respondent intended to file her Answer and prayed for a
period of seven days from the said date within which to do so, but respondent did not file an Answer.
The hearing was reset to April 1, 2011,7 which was later cancelled, because complainant's counsel
was not feeling well and respondent's representative manifested that respondent was in Mindanao,
attending to the wake of her first cousin. Hence, the hearing was reset to April 15, 2011. On April 15,
2011, complainant and his counsel appeared, while respondent and her representative were absent
despite due notice. The parties were given a period of 30 days from the said date within which to
submit their respective verified position papers. Complainant filed his position paper on May 16,
2011. Respondent did not file a position paper.8
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
On July 25, 2011, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez submitted his Report and
Recommendation9 on the administrative complaint, finding respondent guilty of violating Canons 17
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the suspension of respondent
from the practice of law for six months.
The Investigating Commissioner stated that it is undisputed that complainant engaged the services
of respondent to represent complainant's parents, Alejandro and Cecilia Cabuello, in Criminal Cases
Nos. CC-2007- 1635 and CC-2007-1636, which were pending before the RTC of Calbiga, Samar,
Branch 33. Respondent was paid the following attorney's fees: (1) ₱20,000.00 for filing fee,
appearance fee and transportation expenses of respondent and her assistant, given on August 21,
2007; (2) ₱20,000.00 for respondent's acceptance fee, given on October 19, 2007; (3) ₱l0,000.00 for
the motion and affidavit of waiver, given on November 7, 2007; (4) ₱l 9,000.00, allegedly for the
additional plane fare of respondent and her assistant, as there was no longer any promotional fare,
given on December 16, 2007; (5) ₱15,000.00 for the criminal case to be filed against the police,
given on January 13, 2008; (6) ₱8,500.00 for the fare of respondent and her assistant, including taxi
fare and food at the airport, given on February 4, 2008; (7) ₱2,500.00 for penalty, as they were not
able to use their plane tickets, given on February 4, 2008; and (8) ₱2,500.00 for payment of a
motion, given on April 18, 2008.
The cases of complainant's parents were set for arraignment on July 27, 2007. On the said date,
respondent failed to appear. Hence, a counsel de oficio was assigned to assist complainant's
parents. Thereafter, the hearing was set on October 1 and 12, 2007.
On August 31, 2007, respondent filed a Motion to Transfer Dates of Hearing,10 praying that the
hearings set on October 1, 2007 and on October 12, 2007 be cancelled and transferred to
November 8 and 9, 2007 allegedly for convenience, economic reason and to maximize efforts and
results.
After the trial court granted the motion to transfer the hearing to November 8 and 9, 2007,
respondent again filed an Urgent Motion to Reset Hearing (Scheduled on November 8 and 9,
2007)11 to January 18, 2008, because respondent was allegedly suffering from severe and recurring
back pains due to a vehicular accident that occurred on September 7, 2007, and she submitted a
medical certificate12 therefor. Thus, the pre-trial was reset to November 28 and 29, 2007,13 which did
not proceed, because respondent filed another motion to reset the hearing to December 19 and 20,
2007.14 Several postponements followed until June 19, 2008 when respondent failed to appear
because of peptic ulcer.15 (In the Order16 dated June 19, 2008, the trial court issued a warrant of
arrest for the apprehension of the accused). Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest with Apologia Cum Explanation,17 and
requested that the hearing of the motion be set on July 25, 2008, but since the court would not be in
session on the said date, the hearing of the motion was set on July 31, 2008.18 On the said date,
respondent again failed to appear despite due notice. This was followed by other settings until the
pre-trial conference was set on September 25, 2008.19
On the scheduled pre-trial conference on September 25, 2008, respondent again failed to appear
despite due notice. Hence, the trial court appointed Atty. Prescilla A. Salvacion of the Public
Attorney's office (PAO) as counsel for complainant's parents. Notwithstanding the appointment by
the trial court of a counsel de officio due to the repeated absences of the respondent, the latter still
filed a Motion to Reset Hearing,20 praying that the hearings of the case for trial on the merits
scheduled on November 27, 2008 and December 11, 2008 be reset to January 15, 2009 and
February 19, 2009, which motion was denied by the trial court.21
On December 11, 2008, before the prosecution presented its first witness, Atty. Salvacion
manifested to the trial court that respondent's secretary called up to inform her that respondent
would still be appearing in the said case and that she would be available on January 15, 2009.
Thereafter, the respondent never communicated with the complainant or his family. The demand
letters sent by complainant to respondent for the return of the payments made to her were just
ignored.
Based on the foregoing facts, the Investigating Commissioner found that respondent violated
Canons 1722 and 1823 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that respondent
be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law for six months.
On May 17, 2012, respondent filed a Motion to Re-open and to Set Conference and For (15) Days to
File Opposition/Position Paper,24 praying that, in the interest of substantial justice, the case be re-
opened and the conference be set anew on May 31, 2013 and that respondent be given 15 days or
until May 31, 2012 within which to file her Opposition/Position Paper relative to the complaint.
Respondent stated that she learned of the filing of the complaint and was able to read the
allegations therein when she arrived from the U.S.A. for medical reasons as she had to be tested at
the New York Hospital in New York, U.S.A. for the donation of her bone marrow to her brother who
was afflicted with cancer.
Complainant filed an Opposition25 dated May 29, 2012, praying for the denial of respondent's motion,
as it did not state the period of her stay in the U.S.A. and no document was attached to support her
excuse. Moreover, during the mandatory conference dated March 4, 2011, respondent's
representative manifested that respondent intended to file an Answer, but she did not file an Answer
or a Position Paper. Respondent's representative also never mentioned that respondent was in the
U.S.A., but she informed the Commission that respondent was sick and could not appear before it.
Ruling of the IBP Board of Governors
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2013-234,26 which
adopted and approved with modification the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation, finding that respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and sanctioned respondent with suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
months and ordered her to return the amount received from complainant with legal interest from the
time the demand was made within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.
On July 10, 2013, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration27 of the IBP Resolution. Respondent
apologized for her failure to appear during the proceedings of this case, and reiterated that she was
then in New York, U.S.A., as she was being considered as a bone marrow donor for her brother who
was afflicted with cancer. She stated that complainant's allegation of payments made to her was not
supported by evidence.
Respondent alleged that these are the true facts pertaining to this case:
a) Respondent admitted that she was engaged to represent the accused Spouses Cabuello in the
criminal cases for qualified theft. However, she said that at that time, she already intimated to Mr.
Cabuello that she has health problems so that in case she cannot attend the hearings, she may
have to withdraw from the case, although in terms of legwork or filing of pleadings and the like, her
assistant Marivic Alusitain can assist them.
b) Thus, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion28 dated August 16, 2007 in the second case for
Qualified Theft, which motion prayed for (1) the early resolution of accused's prayer for reduction of
bail incorporated in respondent's (as accused's counsel) Formal Entry of Appearance; (2) the
remand of the custody of both the accused, pending the proceedings of the case, from the provincial
jail to the Calbiga Municipal Jail where they were previously detained; and (3) the cancellation of the
hearing of the case on August 1 7, 2007 and resetting it on October 1, 2007 or October 12, 2007 at
8:30 a.m.
c) Respondent caused a request for reduction of the bail of the accused, and in an Order29 dated
August 9, 2007, the trial court gave notice that the request for reduction of bail from ₱24,000.00 and
₱30,000.00, respectively, to ₱5,000.00 for both cases would be heard on August 1 7, 2007.
d) In the Order30 dated September 21, 2007, the court stated that co-accused Cecilia Cabuello
posted thru Marivic Alusitain the amount of ₱22,000.00 as cash bail for both cases. In view thereof,
co-accused Cecilia Cabuello was ordered released from detention.
e) In one of the hearings of the case, both accused were indisposed due to medical reasons; hence,
an order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them was issued. Thus, respondent filed a
Motion for Reconsideration31 of the said Order with an Affidavit of Waiver32 so that the absence of the
accused thereafter may be excused.
f) During the subsequent hearings of the case, either the court or the respondent, who was afflicted
with several ailments, [reset the hearings] as evidenced by the orders of the court for the resetting of
the case and some of the medical certificates attached to the motion.
g) All the resetting of the hearings of the case that were filed by the respondent were with the
knowledge and conformity of her clients as well as complainant Reynaldo Cabuello.
h) Thus, respondent and Mr. Cabuello agreed, for economic reasons, that the Cabuellos would verify
from the court, days before a hearing is scheduled, if the hearing would push through so that there
would be no need for them to go to court in case a hearing is or would be cancelled.
i) For the February 6, 2008 hearing, respondent purchased a PAL ticket,33 but she was informed by
complainant Reynaldo Cabuello the day before the hearing that the said February 6, 2008 hearing
was cancelled due to the retirement of the Presiding Judge of the court.
j) Because of the foregoing events and incidents, which have caused problems, stress and
inconvenience as well as expenses for all parties, both accused, thru complainant Reynaldo
Cabuello, informed the respondent that they will terminate her services and they will get a new
lawyer to represent them. As far as respondent knows, the accused were already represented by a
new counsel of record in the case (per the trial court's Order34 dated February 5, 2009).
k) Thus, respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused35 (dated February 28,
2009), with the conformity of the accused and duly received by the court. Corollary thereto,
respondent surrendered to the accused all the records of the case in her possession, as evidenced
by the Acknowledgment36 (dated February 28, 2009) of Ms. Cabuello.
l) In the same vein, for the purpose of peace, respondent offered to return to her clients, thru
accused Cecilia Cabuello, the payments made by the Cabuellos for the case, as evidenced by the
document37 dated February 28, 2009 (Annex "14").38
Moreover, respondent alleged that complainant's monetary claim has no basis, especially as
respondent also spent ₱22,000.00 for the bail of her clients, plus ₱l0,000.00 for the fare of Ms.
Alusitain and ₱l 0,000.00 for other expenses and court fees, including certified true copies of all the
documents in court when she caused the filing of the bail, and ₱5,000.00 for her PAL ticket for the
hearing scheduled on February 6, 2008, which was reset by the court because of the Presiding
Judge's retirement. Respondent denied the other alleged payments and stated that any money
delivered by complainant to her assistant/staff was between them as the same, if any, arose out of
their agreement/arrangement, since she (respondent) never ordered complainant to that effect.
Respondent also stated that she had already rendered her services in the case and had filed the
Omnibus Motion, Waiver and other pleadings; hence, based on quantum meruit, she may already be
entitled to certain fees.
Respondent asserted that she did not violate Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, considering the foregoing facts and evidence. She prayed that the IBP reconsider
and set aside its Resolution and that a new Order be issued dismissing the complaint for lack of
merit.
On August 29, 2013, complainant filed his comment39 to respondent's motion for reconsideration. He
contended that the motion should be denied on the following grounds: (a) respondent's version of
the facts should not be raised in a motion for reconsideration; (b) the attachments to the motion
would show that respondent admitted that there were payments made; (c) contrary to respondent's
claim, the attachments would show that respondent had been coordinating with complainant; and (d)
the duty of a lawyer to his client to exert diligent efforts should be until the termination of the client-
lawyer relationship.
Complainant denied respondent's allegation that he took advantage of the fact that respondent was
in the U.S.A. at the time he filed the complaint, since he had no knowledge of the same. During the
mandatory conference held on March 4, 2011, respondent's representative, Marivic Alusitain,
appeared and manifested that respondent intended to file an Answer within a period of seven days.
Respondent's representative informed the Commission that respondent was sick and could not
appear before it, but she never mentioned that respondent was in the U.S.A. for any medical
examination for bone marrow transplant. Respondent has not substantiated her claim of being in the
U.S.A. at that time.
Complainant also denied that respondent was the one who paid for the bail bond of his parents,
since he had the money and respondent's representative/secretary, Marivic Alusitain, only
accompanied him. Marivic Alusitain later advised him that the receipt should be under her name in
order that they will be known in the place as complainant's counsel.40
Further, complainant stated that it was not true that Cecilia Cabuello received the documents and
money from respondent, because what she received from respondent were the documents
pertaining to Civil Case No. 05-203, which complainant and Cecilia Cabuello asked her to review or
give an opinion on. Cecilia Cabuello refused and never received the money because she knew that
the money belonged to him (complainant) and his siblings. Cecilia Cabuello remembered that
respondent's secretary tricked her to sign a document that she did not understand. Complainant
attached to his Comment the letter41 of Cecilia Cabuello, which stated that she did not receive the
money from respondent's representative/secretary, Marivic Alusitain, because she had no right to
get the money that belonged to her children.
Complainant contended that it is not true that respondent had an agreement with complainant's
parents that respondent may have to withdraw from the case because of health problems, but her
assistant can assist them in terms of legwork or filing of pleadings and the like, since respondent did
not even present any written agreement or contract to show the consent of the other party.
Respondt;nt may have been able to present pleadings that she had filed prior to the arraignment of
his parents, but from the arraignment of the case until respondent's withdrawal as counsel for the
accused, respondent never appeared before the court, and it was the counsel de oficio who
assumed her duties in order not to delay the proceedings.
On March 21, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXI-2014-96,42 which denied
respondent's motion for reconsideration, thus:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there being no cogent reason to
reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had
already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Further, the Board RESOLVED to AFFIRM,
with modification, Resolution No. XX-2013-234 dated March 20, 2013 and accordingly the penalty
meted by Atty. Editha Talaboc increased from six (6) months SUSPENSION from the practice of law
to two (2) years. Moreover, she is hereby Ordered to Return the amount received from Complainant
with legal interest from the time the demand was made within thirty (30) days from notice.
In a letter43 dated July 15, 2014, the IBP Director for Bar Discipline informed the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the trarismittal of the documents of this case to the Court pursuant to Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court.
On September 12, 2014, respondent filed a motion for extension of 15 days to file a petition for
review of the Resolution of the Commission on Bar Discipline denying her motion for
reconsideration, which motion was granted by the Court in a Resolution44 dated October 14, 2014.
In a Resolution45 dated September 15, 2015, the Court considered respondent to have waived the
filing of a petition for review as she failed to file the petition within the extension granted by the
Court, which expired on September 27, 2014.
On July 4, 2016, the IBP Director for Bar Discipline referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant
the Motion for Substitution of Complainant Reynaldo Cabuello46 filed by Ms. Beatriz C. Cabutin on
July 1, 2016, which motion informed the Court of complainant's death on March 27, 2016 and prayed
that he be substituted by his sister, Beatriz Cabuello Cabutin.
In a Resolution47 dated November 8, 2016, the Court granted the motion for substitution and ordered
the substitution of Reynaldo A. Cabuello by Beatriz Cabuello Cabutin as complainant in this case.
Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner and affirms Resolution No. XX-
2013-234 and Resolution No. XXI-2014-96 of the IBP Board of Governors, but modifies the penalty
imposed on the respondent and the amount of money to be refunded by respondent to complainant.
The records show that as counsel of the complainant's parents, respondent was remiss in her duty
toward them by never appearing in the hearings of the criminal case, which contributed to the delay
of the pre-trial of the case for eleven months or almost a year until the trial court finally appointed a
counsel de oficio for respondent's clients so the pre-trial and trial on the merits could proceed.
Respondent kept on filing a motion to reset the scheduled pre-trial, including those dates of hearings
requested by her, from the start until her withdrawal as counsel. This is borne out by the Orders of
the RTC having jurisdiction over the cases of complainant's parents. The Order dated June 19, 2008
states:
It appears from the records that the arraignment of these cases was conducted on July 27, 2007 yet
but no pre-trail conference was conducted because Atty. Editha Talaboc, the counsel for both
accused had filed a series of postponements alleging every thinkable ground as reasons for her
nonappearance.
Considering that sufficient time had already been granted by the Court to the accused, further
considering that in all of these scheduled hearings both accused were not present, issue a warrant
of arrest for the apprehension of accused Alejandro Cabuello and Cecilia Cabuello.48
To the Order quoted above, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Lift
Warrant of Arrest with Apologia cum Explanation49 dated June 24, 2008. The trial court set the
respondent's motion for hearing on July 31, 2008.50
In the Order51 dated July 31, 2008, the trial court lifted the warrant for the arrest of the accused as
they were present in court. Respondent, however, was not available on that day, so the court re-
scheduled the pre-trial conference on August 28, 2008 and stated that if respondent would not
appear on that day, the court will appoint a counsel de oficio to assist the accused.
In an Order52 dated August 21, 2008, the pre-trial conference was reset to September 25, 2008. On
September 25, 2008, respondent was not present, so the court appointed Atty. Prescilla A.
Salvacion of the PAO to represent complainant's parents.53
Thereafter, the hearing for the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution was scheduled on
November 27, 2008 and December 11, 2008. Respondent again filed a Motion to Reset
1âwphi 1
Hearing,54 alleging that she was not available during the scheduled hearings as she was committed
to appear in other branches of the RTC in Metro Manila, and praying that the trial of the cases be
reset to January 15, 2009 and February 19, 2009.
The trial court denied the motion as it had already appointed Atty. Prescilla A. Salvacion to assist the
accused and she had already ably assisted the accused during the pre-trial conference of the case
on September 25, 2008.55
During the hearing of the presentation of evidence for the prosecution scheduled on December 11,
2008, Atty. Prescilla A. Salvacion informed the court that respondent's secretary called up to inform
her that respondent will still be representing the accused in the case and that she is available on
January 15, 2009. As reflected in the transcript of stenographic notes, the Court replied, thus:
The Court: The Order of the Court is final. I have already appointed the PAO as the counsel de oficio
of this case, considering that Atty. Editha Talabo[c] just kept on promising that she will be coming to
appear on this case, but she never once [came] to this Court to appear. I will make an Order.56
On March 13, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused.57
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that respondent indeed violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thus:
Canon 17- A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
A member of the legal profession owes his/her client entire devotion to the latter's genuine interest,
and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his/her rights.58 An attorney is expected to exert
his/her best efforts and ability to preserve his/her client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed
to his/her client, likewise, serves the ends of justice.59 Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law
carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to
the public.60
Camara v. Atty. Reyes61 held:
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare~ and for the purpose of preserving
courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is
called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant is in no
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome of the case. This is also the reason why
this Court may investigate charges against lawyers regardless of complainant's standing.62
In regard to the refund sought for payments made to respondent alleged to be in the total amount of
₱97,500.00, complainant failed to present receipts or documents to evidence the same.
The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between the client and the
attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as it is not contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public policy or public order.63 In this case, there was no retainer's agreement
between the parties to be able to ascertain the attorney's fees agreed upon and received by
respondent. In his Complaint, complainant sought the return of acceptance fees in the amount of
₱20,000.00 for the criminal cases and ₱l5,000.00 for the case supposed to be filed against the
police officers who arrested the accused. The Court notes that in Annex "14"64 of respondent's
motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted to having received the amount of ₱25,000.00 as
attorney's fee/acceptance fee for the two criminal cases and ₱15,000.00 for the case supposed to be
filed with the fiscal's office plus ₱5,000.00 for expenses, and ₱5,000.00 representing the refund of
the PAL ticket rescheduled four times due to the cancellation and resetting of the court hearings,
totaling ₱50,000.00, which amount respondent offered to return to complainant's mother Cecilia
Cabuello.65 Cecilia Cabuello, however, declined and denied receipt of such payment from
respondent's representative, Marivic Alusitain, because she had no right to receive the money that
belonged to her children, as stated in her letter (Annex "D-2")66 attached to complainant's Opposition
to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, in the absence of receipts or documentary evidence to substantiate the amount of
₱97,500.00 sought to be recovered by complainant from respondent, complainant is entitled to a
refund in the amount of ₱50,000.00, which had been admittedly received by respondent from the
Cabuellos as payment for attorney's/acceptance fees and other expenses including refund of a PAL
ticket and which amount respondent offered to return to Cecilia Cabuello.
The Court modifies the penalty of suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors on
respondent from two years to one year. In Chang v. Hidalgo,67 the Court stated that in several
1avvphi 1
cases, it has imposed the penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice of law for violation of
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds respondent Atty. Editha P. Talaboc GUILTY of
violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, respondent
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, which shall take effect immediately
upon receipt of this Decision by the respondent, and she is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is also DIRECTED to
return to complainant Beatriz Cabuello Cabutin the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00),
with interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from the date of receipt of this Decision
until fully paid.
Upon receipt of this Decision, respondent is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation informing
this Court that her suspension has started and to furnish a copy of the Manifestation to all courts and
quasi-judicial bodies where she has entered her appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondent's personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
