BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
MARY ROSE E. DIZON, ET AL. VS. ATTY. MAILA LEILANI TRINIDAD-RADOC, A.C. NO. 13675 (JULY 11, 2023): LAWYER DISBARRED FOR MISAPPROPRIATING CLIENT’S FUND BY EMPLOYING RUSE THAT SHE ALREADY FILED CASES AND OBTAINED A RULING IN THEIR FAVOR
This is a Disbarment Case filed against respondent Atty. Maila Leilani Trinidad-Radoc (“respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc”) by complainants Mary Rose E. Dizon, Randolph Stephen G. Pleyto and Jonash Belgrade C. Tabanda (collectively as the “Complainants”) for misappropriating Php450,000.00 for intended legal fees for legal services which respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc failed to render.
Complainants engaged the services of respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc for a case involving a lease contract with certain Mr. and Mrs. Nemesio Peralta, Jr. (“Spouses Peralta”). Complainants met respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc and the latter said that she had already drafted the Complaint and asked for Php50,000.00 for Acceptance Fee and Php50,000.00 for Filing Fee which the Complainants paid. A few days after, respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc met the Complainants for the latter to sign the Verification and assured them that the Complaint will be filed. One of the Complainants texted respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc asking about “attachment of properties” which she had claimed to be the best remedy. Respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc texted back that she will need another Php100,000.00 to file such an “attachment case”. Respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc said she was able to file it for only Php98,000.00 and was asking for reimbursement. After negotiations, Complainants paid half of the amount or Php49,000.00.
Respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc messaged them that she filed a complaint with the Bureau of Immigration to prevent Spouses Peralta from leaving the country. The next day, she demanded payment for “Claims and Damages Fee” in the amount of Php150,000.00 which the Complainants deposited to respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc’s account. Respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc notified the Complainants that a decision has yet to be released buts he is expecting it anytime. She then asked another Php150,000.00 as additional “claims and damages” fee which the Complainants paid.
Respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc declared to Complainants that they won the case in the amount of Php5 Million and that the decision has become final and executory. Later on, respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc claimed that the Sheriff’s Sale was successful but the property of the Spouses Peralta was only sold at Php2.2 Million and had to wait for the second sale to satisfy the Php5 Million judgment award. Respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc asked for additional Php200,000.00 as “Buffer Money” for her bidder “in case magkulang ang bid niya.” However, the Complainants failed to pay since they had no more money to give.
Complainants kept on waiting only to be told by respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc that the Check is being prepared. One day, one of the Complainants verified the case through the Quezon City Hall of Justice portal and was surprised that he could not find any case under their names, nor Spouses Peralta. When Complainants confronted respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc, the latter admitted that she defrauded them and made an Undertaking that she will return the Php450,000.00 but to no avail, hence, the filing of Estafa and Disbarment cases.
The Investigating Commissioner and Board of Governors recommended suspension of respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc from the practice of law for three (3) years.
The Supreme Court applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) since its transitory provision states that it is applicable to “all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.” The Court held that it is apt to apply the CPRA as it would neither be infeasible nor work injustice.
The Supreme Court disbarred respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc finding her to have violated Canon I (Independence) and Sections 1-4 of Canon IV (Competence and Diligence) of the CPRA and held: “Atty. Trinidad-Radoc was engaged to file a civil case in favor of the complainants. She steered the complainants to believe that she had filed a money claim against the Spouses Peralta, and asked for the attachment of the latter’s properties, convincing them to sign the complaint, and hastily demanded payment for her services. At one point, she even convinced the complainants that filing an action to attach the properties of the Spouses Peralta was based on a judge’s advice, assuring them that their legal concerns were attentively taken care of. To further the ruse, she claimed she had filed a case with the BI to prevent the Spouses Peralta from leaving the country. Thereafter, she successfully convinced the complainants that their phantom case had progressed and resulted in the trial court awarding them with P5 million. However, when pressed for the proceeds, Atty. Trinidad-Radoc no longer replied.
Here, there is nary a doubt that Atty. Trinidad-Radoc hoodwinked the complainants to believe their interests in their Sublease Agreement against the Spouses Peralta were being protected. Worse, she led them to believe that the trial court had granted them a monetary award that she had deposited to the complainant’s bank account. These actions reflect a complete lack of integrity unbefitting of a member of the Bar.”
Aside from imposing the supreme penalty of Disbarment, respondent Atty. Trinidad-Radoc was also directed to return the amount of Php450,000.00 with legal interest of 6% until fully paid.