8) Nicolas vs. Atty. Laki, A.C. No.
12881, February 09, 2021
A disbarment case soughtbefore the IBP by Norma Nicolas against Atty Jose LAki for for violation of
Canon l , Rule 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 10, Rule 10.01; Canon 15, Rule 15.06; Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and
16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03, all of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
FACTS:
In November 2005, Nicolas sought the legal service of Atty Umipig to handle the marriage annulment
case of her brother. But because Atty Umipig was with the government service, she referred Atty Laki to
handle the case instead. Atty Laki therefore accepted the case.
Atty Laki told Nicolas that he will be filing the case in Bataan where had successfully handled same
petition in just three months. He then asked P 130,000.00 and assured Nicolas that the annulment
proceedings would be finished by the first week of April 2006.
In December 2005, Atty Laki fetched Atty. Umipig for them to meet Nicoolas. In the said meeting, the
initial payment of P 100,000.00 which was discounted to P95,000.00 was handed to Atty Laki.
In March 2006, Atty Laki requested additional payment and reassured that the case was almost finished.
Thus, Nicolas had Atty. Umipig to deposit P20,000.00 to the bank account of Atty Laki’s mother.
In April 2006, Atty Laki told Nicolas and Atty. Umipig that the presiding judge over the case was on leave.
He nevertheless guaranteed that the case was almost done. But after the holy week, neither Nicolas nor
Atty Umipig to contact him.
Atty. Umipig was eventually able to locate Atty Laki but the latter simply made excuses. He claimed that
the Judge was hesitant to issue a favorable decision but he managed to convince the judge to do it
anyway. According to him, the sheriff was already serving copies of the decision to the National Statistics
Office and the Local Civil Registrar were the marriage took place. Thereafter, Atty Laki was difficult to
find
once again.
In November 2006, Nicolas went to Balanga, Bataan to check on the status annulment case but
discovered that no case was ever filed. Nicolas thus sought Atty. Umipig's help to compel respondent to
return the money and Atty Laki promised to do so. Sadly, he did not do good to his promise. Worse, he
ignored the demand letter she sent him.
This prompted Nicolas to file disbarment case against Atty Laki for misrepresentations, deceitful
conduct,
and misappropriation of money entrusted him, in violation of the CPR.
Respondent failed to refute the charges against him despite of the many instances given him.
In the IBP Report and Recommendation Atty Laki was found guilty of violating Canon l , Rule 1.01; Canon
I l ; Canon 15, Rule 15.06; Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03, warranting his
disbarment.
ISSUE: W/N Atty Laki be dibarred in violation of Rule 1.01; Canon I l ; Canon 15, Rule 15.06; Canon 16,
Rules 16.01 and 16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03.
RULING: the Court FINDS respondent Jose Laki GUILTY of violating Canon l , Rule 1.01; Canon I l, Rule
11.04; Canon 15, Rule 15.06; Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
IBP
WHEREFORE in view thereof, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Jose N. Laki be
DISBARRED from the practice of law.
The former is imposed in lieu of disbarment since respondent cannot serve two (2) penalties of
disbarment simultaneously; the latter, for his discourtesy toward the IBP and his defiance of its
directives to appear during the proceedings and respond to the complaint filed against him.
