Group 10. Assigned to Villagonzalo.
81. Gradiola vs Deles, AC No. 10267, 18 June 2018
Facts:
● Complaint for disbarment filed by Helen Gradiola (Helen), charging respondent lawyer Atty. Romulo A.
Deles (respondent lawyer) with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 9.01 and
Rule 9.02 of Canon 9; and Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 thereof
● Deles was her counsel and that he assigned or delegated his professional duties to “Atty. Ernesto Araneta”
(Atty. Araneta). Instead of attending full time to her case, respondent lawyer allowed "Atty. Araneta" to
do the legal research works and the preparation of various pleadings relative to the civil case
● She was assured that the case was in "good hands" because respondent lawyer and "Atty. Araneta" have
a "contact" in the CA in Cebu City
● She was shown a photocopy of a resolution that “declared” her and her spouse as the owners of the four
lots subject-matter of the said CA-G.R. CV No. 63354. Helen added that respondent lawyer nonetheless
cautioned that their adversaries in the case had appealed to the Supreme Court, hence they had to
prepare their own "position paper" to support the appeal before this Court. And, that naturally, this would
inevitably entail monetary expenses.
● Helen was billed P 207,000. "Atty. Araneta" split the attorney's fees with respondent lawyer
● Helen discovered that:
○ Atty. Araneta was disbarred from the practice of law
○ The resolution was a fabrication
○ The position paper was an utter simulation
○ She and her husband lost the said case. Res judicata.
● Helen filed a criminal complaint for Estafa against Atty. Araneta. Filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Deles.
● The IBP issued its Order 10 directing respondent lawyer to submit his Answer. In a Manifestation, John P.
Deles (John), respondent lawyer's eldest son, informed the IBP, that about three weeks before receipt of
the IBP's Order, his father suffered a stroke and underwent a brain surgery. John implored the IBP to hold
in abeyance this administrative case until his father is finally able to physically and intelligently file an
Answer to Helen's complaint. John claimed that at that time, his father could hardly move and could not
talk. He submitted pictures of his father and a medical certificate.
● Deles was represented by a counsel, Atty. Mampang.
● Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors:
○ suspension from the practice of law for one year for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.1
and Rule 10.2 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue: Did Atty. Deles violate Rule 9.01 (Duty not to delegate legal work to unqualified persons), Rule 10.01 (Duty
not to do any falsehood), and Rule 10.02 (Duty not to knowingly misquote or misrepresent)?
Ruling:
● While "Atty. Araneta" admitted of his involvement in a fraudulent scheme in defrauding litigants that
included Helen, we cannot immediately conclude that respondent lawyer himself was likewise part of
this racket that duped Helen. It must be stressed that, because of his medical condition, respondent
lawyer could not yet explain his side. While indeed, an Answer was filed, it was John who signed the same
and not respondent lawyer. As such, we still cannot consider respondent lawyer to have been
adequately represented
● With respondent lawyer not yet in a position to factually dispute the accusations and defend himself, and
considering that there was no established lawyer-client relationship at all between him and Atty.
Mampang, albeit the latter acted for respondent lawyer's best interest, proceeding with the investigation
of the administrative case against him would amount to a denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to
be heard.
● WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XX-2013-511 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopting and approving
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
1
Group 10. Assigned to Villagonzalo.
This case is ordered REMANDED to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for further investigation, report and recommendation. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby
instructed to: 1) require respondent lawyer's son, John P. Deles, to provide an update on his father's health
condition and, on the basis of such update; 2) to hold the case in abeyance if respondent lawyer's stroke
aftermath has significantly impaired his cognitive ability and speech that he is not capable of presenting
his defense or 3) to direct respondent lawyer to file his Answer and continue with the proceedings if he is
found to be medically fit and his condition having improved over time, having regained his cognitive and
communication skills.
