SC clears lawyer of misconduct case

CEBU, Philippines — For lack of evidence, the Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the charges filed against a lawyer for his alleged failure to perform his duty to his client.

SC Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo, in his penned decision, dropped the serious misconduct and violation of lawyer's oath cases filed against Atty. Luisito C. Arma.

"Given all these, the Court finds that the allegations against respondent remained unsubstantiated. Hence, the disciplinary action against him cannot stand," read the decision.

PSP Development Corporation, represented by Reynaldo Jesus Pasco, Sr., in its complaint, alleged that they hired Arma’s services in 2004 to file a case against a certain Pio Castillo, Jr. and Macatan Apparel, Inc. for P65,000 as professional fees.

However, despite payment and repeated follow-ups, Arma allegedly failed and refused to file the necessary case in court to their prejudice, said Pasco.

Because of that, the PSP Development Corp. made a final demand asking Arma to return the money he received from them, but to no avail.

PSP Development Corp. sought for disciplinary action against Arma.

Arma failed to answer the allegations filed against him. He appeared to have been in default and his case should have been heard ex-parte.

The SC, however, noticed that, based on records, there was no indication that the PSP Development Corp. presented evidence ex-parte and no follow-ups of the status of the case made.

"However, on the basis alone of the allegations in the complaint, we find that complainant failed to convince us, much more discharge the necessary burden to prove by substantial evidence that respondent committed the accusations against him," read the decision.

Also, the PSP Development Corp failed to present additional evidence establishing that Arma accepted money but failed to render any service in favor of the former.

The SC ruled that there was no sufficient basis for a disciplinary action against Arma.

"The Court cannot simply deprive respondent of the right to practice his legal profession without any sufficient factual and legal justifications," the decision further read. (FREEMAN)