3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly A few days later, Atty. Doctor informed complainant that she has to post a "replevin bond" (as Atty. Doctor has termed it) in the amount of P400,000.00 in order for BFAR to immediately release the vessel. Also, she has to pay US$50,000.00 as administrative fine to convince the BFAR to put an end to the administrative case so that her license will not be cancelled. Thus, complainant, accompanied by Evangeline and Kevin, met Atty. Doctor on June 21, 2011 at KFC, Timog St., Quezon City and gave him the amount of P400,000.00 and US$50,000.00. After receiving the money, Atty. Doctor assured complainant that the fishing vessel will be released in two days and that the BFAR case will be terminated in three days. Complainant did not . receive any receipt or bond and the BFAR case was not terminated. Complainant found out that no replevin bond was posted by Atty. Doctor and worse, the prosecution had already presented its evidence ex-parte, since complainant was declared in default for failure of Atty. Doctor to file the required answer on her behalf.[5] Complainant immediately called Atty. Doctor to return the P800,000.00, representing the P400,000.00 given on June 8, 2011 and P400,000.00 given on June 21, 2011, and the US$50,000.00 given on June 21, 2011. Out of the amount, Atty. Doctor only returned to complainant US$40,000.00 on June 27, 2011. A week after, Atty. Doctor returned the amount of US$2,000.00, and he was able to account for the US$1,500.00. Complainant repeatedly called and sent text 1nessages to Atty. Doctor relative to the status of the cases. However, Atty. Doctor did not answer complainant's call nor her text messages. Complainant even went to his residence and office just to get an update of the cases being handled by him.[6] In view of Atty. Doctor's refusal to return and/or account for the money given by complainant, the latter was constrained to send formal demand letters and eventually terminated Atty. Doctor's services. After receiving the letters, Atty. Doctor appeared in one of the hearings before the B FAR and returned to complainant the amount of US$1,900.00, thus, leaving in his trust and possession the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00, which he refuses and continues to refuse to account and/or return. Hence, complainant filed this administrative complainant for disbarment against Atty. Doctor for violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant, likewise, asks that Atty. Doctor be made to return to her the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00.[7] In his Verified Answer,[8] Atty. Doctor stated that the fishing boat, which was apprehended and impounded by the PCG and the BFAR, is actually owned by Hsu Hung Tse @ Cheng Hung Ta, a Taiwanese national, and herein complainant was a mere dummy who submitted perjured and spurious documents for foreigners to evade extant maritime regulations and fishing prohibitions in the Philippines ;[9] and that complainant was criminally charged before the Prosecutor of Olangapo City and the Province of Zambales for falsification of public documents and for qualified theft is not correct and the same is misleading. Complainant was charged in connection with the falsification of the deeds of sale covering other fishing boats (i.e., FV/JVNPHIL 7, F V/NPHIL 6 and FV/JVPHIL 11). He was also hired as counsel of complainant in the case pending before the MARINA. The three fishing boats (i.e., FV/JVPHIL 7, FV/JVPHIL 6 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66125 2/9