5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 12768, June 23, 2020 ]
FELICITAS H. BONDOC, REPRESENTED BY CONRAD H. BAUTISTA,
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARLOW L. LICUDINE, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
GESMUNDO, J.:
This is a Complaint[1] filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) against Atty. Marlow L. Licudine
(respondent) for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), the
Lawyer's Oath, and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Antecedents
Sometime in 2015, Felicitas H. Bondoc (complainant), a resident of Alberta, Canada,
was looking for a lawyer in the Philippines to handle the civil case for annulment of
marriage that she was going' to file against her husband, Benjamin Bondoc. A common
friend then introduced complainant to respondent, a practicing lawyer in Baguio City.[2]
On October 1, 2015, complainant and respondent agreed on their legal engagement
wherein respondent shall file the civil case for annulment on behalf of complainant.[3]
The following day, complainant, through her representative, Maurice G. Deslauriers
(Deslauriers), deposited to respondent's bank account the amount of 2,000.00
Canadian Dollars (CAD$) as initial down payment for the legal fees in the civil case.[4]
Several months passed but complainant did not receive any update regarding the civil
case that respondent was supposed to file, despite the payment of the legal fees.
Moreover, she discovered that respondent divulged her personal information. Due to
respondent's inaction in the civil case and the unwarranted disclosure incident,
complainant decided to terminate respondent's engagement as counsel.[5]
From February 28 to March 8, 2016, complainant was briefly in the Philippines. During
that time, she talked to respondent. According to complainant, respondent said that he
already spent the money she gave him but they verbally agreed that he would return
half of the amount received within the last week of March 2016. Respondent, however,
did not explain where he used the money.
Accordingly, on March 7, 2016, complainant sent a Demand Letter[6] to respondent,
requesting for an accounting of fees and the refund of the legal fees she had paid
within thirty (30) days from receipt. The said letter was duly received by respondent.[7]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66381
1/10