5/19/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Almost two (2) months thereafter, complainant did not receive any feedback from
respondent again. Thus, she sent a Second and Final Demand Letter[8] to respondent,
reiterating the request for accounting and the return of the legal fees. Again, the letter
was received by respondent.[9]
Over a month thereafter, or in July 2016, respondent still had not complied with her
demands. Thus, complainant, through her son Conrad H. Bautista (Conrad), sent text
messages to respondent to follow-up on the return of the legal fees and to deposit the
same to Conrad's bank account. Respondent replied that Conrad should present an
authorization from complainant before he would transact with Conrad.[10]
On July 18, 2016, Conrad sent respondent the Special Authorization signed by
complainant and duly sworn to before the Philippine Consulate General in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, authorizing Conrad to transact with respondent.[11] This was duly
received by respondent.[12]
After a series of follow-ups, respondent informed Conrad that the fund will probably be
ready by August 15, 2016. However, when the said date came, respondent still did not
return the demanded legal fees. On August 29, 2016, respondent said that his law
office was still completing the legal fees to be refunded to complainant.[13]
For almost two (2) months, or from August 30, 2016 to October 3, 2016, Conrad sent
text messages to respondent requesting the return of the legal fees to no avail. On
October 3, 2016, respondent simply replied that his office was waiting for remittances.
[14]
On October 18, 2016, respondent sent a message to Conrad that their collections in the
law office were still not enough but he will be returning the agreed legal fees of
complainant by the last week of October.[15] However, on the last day of October 2016,
respondent did not respond to Conrad. Thereafter, respondent was never heard of
again. Thus, complainant filed this instant administrative case against respondent.
In his Answer,[16] which was belatedly filed before the Commission, respondent
countered that sometime in August 2015, complainant was referred to him because she
wanted to annul her existing marriage. According to respondent, complainant wanted
to avail of the annulment in the Vicariate of Baguio City because it was faster than
court proceedings. Respondent advised complainant that he will research on the matter
as he was not familiar with Church-instituted annulments;[17] that in October 2015,
complainant called respondent and told her she will be availing of his services to file an
annulment case in the Philippines;[18] and that complainant sent the agreed
acceptance fee of P60,000.00 (CAD$ 2,000.00), through her representative
Deslauriers, and her legal documents. Respondent claimed that Deslauriers is the livein partner of complainant in Canada. Sometime in December 2015, respondent
received a call from complainant that he allegedly divulged some of her personal
information. He denied such accusation but it made a rift between the respondent and
complainant. The latter then stated that she would look for another lawyer for the filing
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66381
2/10