ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.C. No. 2901. June 28, 1999]

JULIANA ELEVADO, et al. vs. ATTY. LITTIE SARAH A. AGDEPPA

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28, 1999.

A.C. No. 2901 (Juliana Elevado and Restituta Absalon vs. Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa.)

The case is a verified letter-complaint for disbarment dated June 24, 19861 [Rollo, pp. 1-13.] filed by Juliana Elevado and Restituta Absalon against Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa, for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the lawyer's oath.

On April 25, 1986, Romeo Ani�on was placed in preventive detention for being a suspect in the killing of Incocencio Elevado, the husband and brother of Juliana Elevado and Restituta Absalon, respectively. Ani�on signed a written confession admitting his guilt for the killing, which was corroborated by Pfc. Ernesto P. Tamayo, the investigator assigned to the case and who took the aforesaid confession.

That same afternoon, Ani�on contracted the services of Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa for the purpose of handling his defense.

The written confession was still in the possession of the investigator and not yet submitted to the appropriate authority. According to complainants, respondents Agdeppa borrowed the written confession of Ani�on on the pretext that she wanted to go over it and that it would be returned the same day. However, respondent never returned the document.

Respondent, in her Comment2 [Dated August 13, 1987, Rollo, pp. 12-23.] maintained that the confession was repudiated by her client; not having been sworn to, the same was still a private writing and it was well within her client's right to withdraw or repudiate the same. Moreover, said confession was extracted by force and signed without the assistance of counsel. Respondent further asserted that the confession was a pre-typed statement that her client would not have signed were it not for the undue force exerted upon him.

The Bar Confidant, in her Report and Recommendation dated January 26, 1998, found that respondent had a right to withdraw the uncounselled confession of her client. However, it found that respondent acted in a deceitful manner in retrieving the confession and recommendation that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) months with a warning that a repetition of the aforesaid acts would be dealt with more severely.

We do not agree. We resolve to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE