The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of merit the disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Renato L. Bondal for alleged neglect in handling an estafa case, but still found him guilty of four counts of disobeying lawful orders of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Court ordered him to pay a total fine of PHP 140,000.00, plus an earlier unpaid fine of PHP 1,000.00, all within three months from receipt of the Decision.
The Case
Complainant Cristy (full name appears in the record) alleged that sometime in May 2010, she and her boyfriend Louie Quizmondo engaged the legal services of Atty. Bondal to file an estafa case against three individuals before the Office of the City Prosecutor for Quezon City. She paid Atty. Bondal PHP 55,000.00 as attorney's fees, but he did not issue any official receipt despite repeated demands. Several months later, she followed up and discovered that Atty. Bondal had not filed the estafa case. Instead, he merely gave her a draft affidavit-complaint and told her and Louie to file it themselves. She demanded the return of the PHP 55,000.00 and the documents she had entrusted to him. Atty. Bondal returned the documents but not the money. She was eventually constrained to hire another lawyer. On February 11, 2011, she formally demanded the return of the PHP 55,000.00 by letter, but Atty. Bondal ignored it, prompting her to file the administrative complaint.
Atty. Bondal sought extensions to file his comment but ultimately never filed one. He attached to one of his motions an Affidavit of Desistance dated December 27, 2011, in which Cristy stated she was voluntarily withdrawing the complaint as she was no longer interested in pursuing the disbarment case. Despite this, the Court continued to require Atty. Bondal to file his comment and later imposed a fine of PHP 1,000.00 on him — which he also failed to pay. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) later directed him to file an answer, which he likewise ignored.
The Issue
The Court addressed two questions: first, whether Atty. Bondal was administratively liable for neglect in handling his clients' estafa case; and second, whether his repeated failure to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP warranted disciplinary action.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, with modification. On the neglect charge, the Court agreed that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit, noting that Atty. Bondal had in fact drafted the necessary affidavit-complaint for estafa and that there was no showing he incurred delay in doing so or that his request for his clients to do the physical filing themselves was unreasonable.
On the defiance of orders, the Court found Atty. Bondal guilty of four separate counts of violating Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — the rule requiring lawyers to obey lawful orders of the courts and the IBP. The Court also noted that a disbarment case is sui generis — meaning it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers — and that it may proceed even after a complainant files an affidavit of desistance.
The dispositive portion of the Decision states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Complaint-Affidavit filed against Atty. Renato L. Bondal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Nonetheless, he is found GUILTY of four counts of violation of Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for disobeying the Resolutions dated February 8, 2012, August 5, 2019, and June 30, 2021 of the Supreme Court, and Resolution dated January 13, 2023 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines."
The Court ordered Atty. Bondal to pay a fine of PHP 35,000.00 for each count, or a total of PHP 140,000.00, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely. He was also ordered to comply with the Court's Resolution dated August 5, 2019 and pay the earlier fine of PHP 1,000.00. All payments must be made within three months from receipt of the Decision.
By the Numbers
- PHP 55,000.00 — attorney's fees paid by complainant to Atty. Bondal
- PHP 1,000.00 — earlier fine imposed by the Court on August 5, 2019, still unpaid
- PHP 35,000.00 — fine per count of disobedience under the CPRA
- 4 — number of counts of disobedience found by the Court
- PHP 140,000.00 — total fine imposed (PHP 35,000.00 × 4 counts)
- 3 months — deadline to pay all fines from receipt of the Decision
- 10 days — deadline to submit proof of payment to the Court
- 5 days — deadline to submit a sworn statement of the date of receipt of the Decision
The Court's Reasoning
The Court emphasized that a disbarment proceeding continues regardless of a complainant's desistance, because in cases against lawyers, complainants are treated as mere witnesses. On the substantive neglect charge, the Court found no evidence that Atty. Bondal delayed in drafting the affidavit-complaint or that asking his clients to do the physical filing was unreasonable.
On the disobedience charge, the Court identified four separate acts: failure to file a comment despite extensions granted under the Resolution of February 8, 2012; failure to file a comment and pay the PHP 1,000.00 fine required by the Resolution of August 5, 2019; failure to file a comment and pay the fine in defiance of the Resolution of June 30, 2021; and failure to file an answer to the complaint as directed by the IBP-CBD's Order of January 13, 2023. The Court classified this repeated disobedience as a less serious offense under Canon VI, Section 34 of the CPRA and imposed separate penalties for each count under Canon VI, Section 40. The Court stated that Atty. Bondal's conduct indicated a lack of respect for the Court and the IBP's rules and procedures, and reminded him that as a lawyer he must maintain respect not only to the courts but also to judicial officers and other duly constituted authorities, including the IBP.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, A.C. No. 9174 (Formerly CBD Case No. 22-6689), Cristy v. Atty. Renato L. Bondal. The ponente is not identified by name in the excerpt provided.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.