CHUA V. MESINA
August 12, 2004 A.C. No. 4904
Facts:
Mesina was, for years, the Chua spouses’ legal counsel and
adviser upon whom they reposed trust and confidence. They were in fact
lessees of a building (Burgos Property) owned by Mesina’s family, and
another property (Melencio Property), also owned by Mesina’s family where
the Chua spouses constructed their house. These two properties were
mortgaged by the registered owner, Mesina’s mother, Mrs. Mesina, in favor
of the Planters Development Bank to secure a loan she obtained. As Mrs.
Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank, Atty. Mesina convinced
the Chua spouses to help Mrs. Mesina to settle her obligation in
consideration for which the Melencio property would be sold to them at
P850.00/sq. m. The spouses Chua and their business partner, Marcelina
Hsia, settled Mrs. Mesina’s bank obligation in the amount of P983,125.40.
A Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 19, 1985 conveying the Melencio
property for P85,400.00 was thereafter executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose
name appears therein as “Felicisima M. Melencio,” in favor of
complainants. As complainants were later apprised of the amount of capital
gains tax they were to pay, they consulted respondent about it. Respondent
thus suggested to them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be
executed, antedated to 1979 before the effectivity of the law mandating the
payment of capital gains tax. As suggested by respondent, another Deed of
Absolute Sale antedated February 9, 1979 was executed by Mrs. Mesina,
whose name again appears therein as “Felicisima M. Melencio,” in favor of
complainants wherein the purchase price was also indicated to be
P85,400.00. After liquidating the advances made by the Chua spouses “in
the redemption of the MESINA properties,” Mrs. Mesina was found to have
“an existing balance” due the spouses in the amount of P400,000.00, on
account of which they advised respondent about it. Respondent, by
Affidavit “acknowledged such obligation” to be his and undertook to settle it
within two years. Complainants were subsequently issued on a title over
the Melencio property. Not long after the execution of the Deed of Absolute
Sale or in February 1986, one Tecson filed an Affidavit dated charging Mrs.
Mesina, the spouses Chua, Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the
said Deed of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of Public Document and
violation of the Internal Revenue Code. In his complaint affidavit, Tecson
alleged that he was also a lessee of the Melencio property and was, along
with the Chua spouses, supposed to purchase it but that contrary to their
agreement, the property was sold only to complainant and her cocomplainant, to his exclusion. Tecson went on to relate that the Deed of
Absolute Sale did not reflect the true value of the Melencio property and
was antedated “to evade payment of capital gains tax.” Tecson submitted
documents showing that indeed the July 9, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale
was antedated. Respondent thereupon hatched a plan to dodge the
falsification charge against Mrs. Mesina et al. He proposed to complainants
that they would simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein
complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina. Heeding the proposal of
respondent, complainants executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1,
1986 conveying to “Felicisima M. Melencio” the Melencio property for
P85,400.00.A new title was accordingly issued in the name of “Felicisima
M. Melencio,” the owner’s copy of which was entrusted to complainants.
Tecson subsequently filed an Affidavit of Desistance dated September 5,
1986 alleging that his filing of the criminal complaint “arose out of mere
misunderstanding and difference” with herein complainants and their corespondents and he had no sufficient evidence against them. Some years
later, Mesina approached the Chua spouses and told them that he would
borrow the owner’s copy of Mrs. Mesina’s title with the undertaking that he
would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina execute a deed of sale over the
Melencio property in complainants’ favor. In fact, respondent gave
complainants a written undertaking dated May 2, 1990. In the meantime,
Mrs. Mesina died “in the early part of 1991.” Despite respondent’s repeated
promises “to effect” the transfer of title in complainants’ name, he failed to
do so. Complainants were later informed that the Melencio property was
being offered for sale to the public. The spouses Chua and complainant
Marcelina Hsia thus filed a complaint against Mesina for Declaration of
Nullity of Sale and Reconveyance of Real Property.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mesina is guilty of Gross Misconduct?
HELD: This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct. First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of
Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes,
he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and
not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent
intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government is
aggravating. Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute
another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made
it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his
mother, he committed dishonesty. Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent
inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the
owner’s copy of his mother’s title upon the misrepresentation that he would,
in four months, have a deed of sale executed by his mother in favor of
complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty. As a rule, a lawyer is not
barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good
faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client
is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the
parties trade at “arms length.” In fine, respondent violated his oath of office
and, more specifically, Canon 1, Rules. 1.01 and Rules 1.02.
Advice:
My personal advice for the lawyer would be that he should exercise ut
most honesty and good faith in dealing with his clients. He should always
abide the canons of legal ethics especially canon 1 rules 1.01 and 1.02
which states that :
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule
1.02
-
A
lawyer
shall
not
counsel
or
abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
JERRY T. WONG V. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II
A.C. NO. 6972
October 17, 2008
Facts :
Jerry Wong as owner of a business selling agricultural and
veterinary products retained the services of Atty. Moya for the purpose of
collecting due and demandable debts in favor of the company. Sometimes
also, Atty. Moya handled personal cases of Wong and his wife. Later, Atty.
Moya asked financial help from Wong for the construction of his house and
the purchase of a car. Wong purchased a car on installment basis for Atty.
Moya. Wong issued postdated checks to cover the payment of the car
while Atty. Moya issued checks in favor of Wong to reimburse him for
purchasing the car. The checks issued by Wong were encashed by
Transfarm (car seller) however, the checks issued by Atty. Moya in favor of
Wong were dishonored for the reason “account closed”. Despite repeated
demands, Atty. Moya refused to replace the dishonored checks. Atty. Moya
also introduced Wong to Quirino Tomlin from whom the construction
materials for his house was obtained. He bought this on credit but Atty.
Moya filed to pay this indebtedness causing embarrassment to Wong. Atty.
Moya also handled a case of the Wong spouses against Berting Diwa.
Judgment was rendered in favor of the spouses and as satisfaction of the
judgment, Diwa paid P15, 680.50. Atty. Moya as the counsel of the
spouses received the payment but did not inform them. The Wongs only
found out about the payment of money when they got hold of the
Manifestation with Prayer to Terminate Proceedings. The IBP-CBD ordered
Atty. Moya to file his answer to the complaint for disbarment filed by Wong.
Atty. Moya filed 3motions for extensions (after the 1st motion was granted
and the time had elapsed, he filed another one and so on and so forth).
Subsequently, he filed a Motion to Dismiss. The IBP-CBD denied the
motion to dismiss and required him to file an answer. Atty. Moya filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied. He then filed for an extension
to file his answer which was granted but with a warning that no further
extension requests will be entertained. When the time to elapse was near
he filed a Very Urgent Motion for Extension to File Answer but the IBP-CBD
did not accept this hence he was declared in default after failing to file his
answer. The IBP-CBD ordered both parties to file their position papers
because a complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys
prescribes in 2years from the date of the professional misconduct which in
this case occurred in 2002 and that it was already 2005. Atty. Moya did not
file any pleadings at all. The IBP recommended that Atty. Moya be
suspended for 1year. The IBP Board of Governors modified this and
suspended Atty. Moya for 2years.
ISSUE Whether or not the suspension of 2 years is justifiable?
HELD Yes! 1) Atty. Moya was charged for having failed to pay his debts
and for issuing worthless checks. He did not deny these allegations.
Rule1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyers
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It has
been held that the issuance of worthless checks as a violation of this rule
and constitutes a gross misconduct. 2) The act of a lawyer in issuing a
check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes such willful
dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in
the legal profession. He cannot justify his act of issuing worthless checks
by his dire financial conditions. He should not have contracted debts which
are beyond his financial capacity to pay. If he suffered financial reverses he
should have explained this with particularity and not though generalized
and unsubstantiated allegations. 3) Atty. Moya is accused of delay in the
delivery of the sum of money due to his client. His failure to explain such
delay cannot be excused by his bare allegation that the same had already
been transmitted to the complainant. 4) His conduct in the course of the
IBP proceedings in this case is also a matter of serious concern. He
submitted a motion to dismiss after requesting several extensions of time to
file his answer. His failure to attend the hearings and belated plea to
dismiss the case, despite orders to the contrary, show a callous disregard
of the lawful orders which caused undue delay in the IBP proceeding. This
conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and violates the lawyer's oath which imposes upon every
member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. 5) It is
stressed that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened
with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with
the Rules of the Legal Profession are the conditions required for remaining
a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to
practice law. 6) As to the penalty, failure to pay debts and issuance of
worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with 1year suspension. However, in this case, Atty. Moya is
suspended for 2 years because aside from issuing worthless checks and
failure to pay his debts, he also seriously breached his client's trust and
confidence to his personal advantage and had shown a wanton disregard
of the IBP's Orders in the course of its proceedings.
Advice: Canon 16 states that :
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession.
Here alone we would see the emphasis of trust between a lawyer and
his client. Such must always be safeguarded by the lawyer. The duty
imposed upon a lawyer is not an easy task and such must be performed
with good faith and diligence. The money and property entrusted to him is
sacred and if violated, trust which is the fundamental base of every relation
is ruined, hence a lawyer must not destroy the trust of his client. The
lawyer is lucky that the courts did not disbar him and that it just suspended
him. Many of the cases decided by the court would have looked at the facts
and decided differently. I would advice every lawyer to take care of the
things his client has entrusted upon him.
ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO
[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.]
FACTS :
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was
published which reads: “Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact
number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but
it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty.
Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of
property and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements
were also published.
An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for
investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty.
Simbillo for 1 year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not
appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but
argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the
absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the
public isn’t served in any way by the prohibition.
ISSUE Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 & Rule 3.01.
HELD Yes! The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in
which the primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a
secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of
justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary
interest. Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage
specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still
considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise
disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond. Solicitation of business is not
altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s
name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a
lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may
a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to
deceive or injure the public or the bar.
Advice:
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of
the defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he
shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
Rule 3.03 – Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice the law currently.
These rules are applicable to the case at bar because such are the
rules that the lawyer violated. Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility warrants disbarment. A lawyer must uphold his duty to the
public and set himself as an example to the public, much more when he is
a public servant. Every dealing he has with the public must be made in
good faith and he must see to it that fairness is observed.
ADVINCULA V. MACABATA
A.C. No. 7204
FACTS:
March 7, 2007
Atty. Macabata was the counsel of Cynthia Advincula. In two
separate incidents, Atty. Macabata turnedthe head of Advincula and kissed
her on the lips. These kissing incidents occurred after meetings regarding a
case that Advincula was involved in. in both incidents, Atty. Macabata
kissed Advincula inside the car, just before dropping her off in a public
street. Atty. Macabata apologized to Advincula via text messages
immediately after the 2nd kissing incident. Advincula filed a petition for
disbarment against Atty. Macabata on the ground of grossly immoral
character. Atty. Macabata admitted that he did kiss Advincula, but that this
was due to his feelings toward Advincula.
ISSUE Is Atty. Macabata guilty of grossly immoral character to merit his
disbarment?
HELD The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Macabata was NOT guilty of
grossly immoral character. Grossly immoral character must be so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to show the common sense of decency. To merit a
disbarment, the act must be grossly immoral. Atty. Macabata’s act of
kissing Advincula was not grossly immoral. The kiss was not motivated by
malice. This was proven by Atty. Macabata’s immediate apology and the
fact that it happened in a well-populated place. Advincula failed to prove
that Atty. Macabata lured her or took advantage of her. While the
disbarment complaint was dismissed, Atty. Macabata was reprimanded and
given a stern warning. The court described his kissing of Advincula as
distasteful. (The Supreme Court also said that greetings like beso are ok.)
Advice:
Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal
proficiency but also of morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
They must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be
of good moral character and must lead lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards in the community.
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community.
Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or
when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances to
shock the community’s sense of decency.
In order to avoid immoral conducts one must first know the meaning
of it. The definitions stated above answers the questions What is immoral
conduct. As a lawyer you must be aware of the line that separates gross
immoral conduct and immoral conduct because an immoral conduct
warrants disbarment which is the worst thing that could happen with
regards to the license of the lawyer.
STEMMERIK V. MAS
A.C. No. 8010
FACTS:
June 16, 2009
Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property
due to its beauty. He consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which the
latter advised him that he could legally buy such properties. Atty Mas even
suggested a big piece of property that he can buy, assuring that it is
alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the necessary
requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he went back to
Denmark. After some time, Atty Mas informed Stemmerik that he found the
owner of the big piece of property and stated the price of the property is
P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving Atty Mas the money, and the latter
supposedly drawing up the necessary paperwork. When Stemmerik asked
when he could have the property registered in his name, Atty Mas can’t be
found. He returned to the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to his
horror, was informed that aliens couldn’t own Philippine Lands and that the
property was also inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a DISBARMENT case
against Atty MAS in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.
The CBD ruled that Atty Mas abused the trust and confidence of Stemmerik
and recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted such recommendations.
ISSUE/S: W/N Atty Mas can be disbarred.
HELD: YES! Disbarred.
RATIO: Disobeyed the Laws and the Constitutional Prohibition Section 7,
Article XII of the Constitution prohibits foreigners from buying Philippine
Lands. Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a
fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution
and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents
that he knew were void and illegal. Deceitful Conduct By advising
complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in
the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was
alienable, respondent deliberately deceived his client. He did not give due
regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Illegal
Conduct By pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by
complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a
fraudulent act that was criminal in nature
Advice :
The definition of misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the
property or funds of another person for one's own use or other
unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust,
an executor or administrator of a deceased person's estate, or by any
person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets.
A lawyer must not misappropriate money or properties given to him
intrust by his clients. Just like any other relationship an attorney – client
relationship is based on trust and if such trust is broken the relationship
may be severed for the confidence in dealing with each other would
diminish.
CORDON V. BALICANTA
A.C. No. 2797
FACTS:
October 4, 2002
Cordon, along with her daughter, inherited some properties
from her husband with the help of Atty Balicanta. Subsequently, Atty
Balicanta enticed them to form a corporation to develop the real properties
inherited. Such corp. was formed, and the properties were registered in the
corp.’s name. Atty Balicanta was the one who single-handedly ran the
corp.’s affairs, by being it’s Chairman, President, General Manager, and
treasurer. By being such officers, he made a number of acts: 1) made
Cordon sign a voting trust agreement; 2) made Cordon sign a SPA to
sell/mortgage properties; 3) transferred title of some of the properties to
other people. And by using spurious Board resolutions, Atty Balicanta also
made the following acts: 1) obtained a loan from Land Bank using the
properties as collateral; 2) Sold the Corp’s right to redeem the properties to
another person; 3) demolished the ancestral home of the Cordon’s and
sold the lot to another person. In all of these, Atty Balicanta did not account
for the proceeds coming the sales and dispositions. The Cordons made
several demands for Atty Balicanta to give back the properties and to
account the proceeds of the loan. When such demands were unheeded,
The Cordons terminated Balicanta’s services and filed a complaint for
disbarment against the latter in the IBP. The Commissioner, in its report,
recommended for Balicanta’s disbarment as well. The IBP Board of
Governors resolved that Balicanta be suspended for 5 years for such
conduct.
ISSUE/S: W/N Balicanta be disbarred .
HELD: YES! Disbarred.
RATIO: Deceitful Conduct The fraudulent acts he carried out against his
client followed a well thought of plan to misappropriate the corporate
properties and funds entrusted to him. He started his devious scheme by
making himself the President, Chairman of the Board, Director and
Treasurer of the corporation, although he knew he was prohibited from
assuming the position of President and Treasurer at the same time. He
also entered into dishonest transactions under the cloak of sham
resolutions. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the
corporation as a means to convert for his own personal benefit properties
left to him in trust by complainant and her daughter.
Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such
character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right
and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so
because “vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of
unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client’s property,
reputation, his life, his all.”
Advice:
Deceit is the intentional act of misleading a person of ordinary
prudence by giving false impression. If a person knowingly or recklessly
misrepresent a fact to another he is said to deceit the other. Tortuous
liability can be imposed on a person who falsely represents a fact with the
intention to make another person detrimentally rely and act upon it.
Being a lawyer one must observe honesty and good faith in all his
dealings. The legal profession is the noblest profession in the world it is
only right that it is dealt with honesty and integrity.
POSIDIO V. VITAN
A.C. No. 6051
FACTS :
April 2, 2007
Posidio engaged the services of Vitan in a Testate Proceeding
of the deceased Nicolasa Arroyo to which she paid Php 20,000.00 as legal
fees. However, Vitan withdrew his appearance in the said case thus,
Posidio had to engage the services of another lawyer. Six years after, Vitan
contacted Posidio and told her that he has with some tax declarations and
other documents purportedly forming part of the estate of Nicolasa Arroyo,
but was not included in the inventory of properties for distribution. He
convinced complainant to file another case to recover her share in the
alleged undeclared properties and demanded P100,000.00 as legal fees.
After several months, however, respondent failed to institute any action.
Complainant decided to forego the filing of the case and asked for the
return of the P100,000.00, but respondent refused despite repeated
demands. The lower court ruled in favor of Posidio and ordered Vitan to
return the Php 100,000.00 and pay an additional Php 20,000.00 as interest
and damages. In compliance, Vitan issued a Prudential Bank check that
was dishonored later on. Despite being sent a notice of dishonor and the
repeated demands to pay, Vitan refused to honor his obligation. The case
was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report
and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner submitted his
Report finding Vitan guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility in defrauding his client and issuing a check
without sufficient funds to cover the same. The IBP penalized Vitan with a
reprimand with stern warning that a similar misconduct will warrant a more
severe penalty.
ISSUE Whether or not Vitan should be penalized?
HELD The Supreme Court agrees with the findings of the IBP. However,
they find that the penalty of reprimand is not commensurate to the gravity
of wrong committed by Vitan. In the instant case, respondent received the
amount of P100,000.00 as legal fees for filing additional claims against the
estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo.
However, he failed to institute an action, thus it was imperative that he
immediately return the amount to complainant upon demand. Having
received payment for services which were not rendered, respondent was
unjustified in keeping complainant’s money. His obligation was to
immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite
complainant’s repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where
he pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself
with good fidelity to his clients. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or
property of his client that may come to his possession. He is a trustee to
said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and
apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a
lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the
Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over
real property under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned
immediately to his client upon demand. The lawyer’s failure to return the
money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that he has
misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. The
conversion by a lawyer of funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross
violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the
legal profession.
Advice: A lawyer must return the money his client gave, the money the
client gave is not as payment, it is given intrust. As a lawyer he is deemed
to be the manager of the legal case of his client. He acts as if he is an
agent of the client, hence, the client deemed to be the principal is the real
owner of the properties which is involved in the case. I have pointed out
that the lawyer – client relationship is like an agency in terms of handling
properties.
GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS V. NALDOZA
A.C. No. 4017 September 29, 1999
Facts:
Atty. convinced his clients to appeal a case from the POEA to
the SC. Atty asked from complainants $2.5K which he said were to be used
for payment of docket fees and that the court could take cognizance of the
case. Later, complainant corporation came to know that the fees to be paid
to the SC consisted only of nominal fees for such kind of appeal. Atty in
order to cover up presented complainant a fake xerox copy of an alleged
Supreme Court receipt representing payment of $2.5K. A criminal case was
filed for estafa. Atty was acquitted but was held civilly liable for $2.5K.
Issue:
Should Atty be disbarred? Should the case be dismissed
because of his acquittal?
Held:
Yes disbarred! No, complaint shouldn’t be dismissed.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They
are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal
cases. The burden of proof is clearly preponderant evidence. A finding of
guilt in a criminal case or liability in a civil case will not necessarily result in
a finding of liability in the administrative case and vice versa. Neither will a
favorable disposition in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of
the lawyer. The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether
different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first
two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. Disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis Respondent's acts are more
despicable. Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted to him; he
also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Worse, he
had the gall to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his
misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue being a member of the
bar.
Advice :
Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The
standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable
ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the
respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need
not be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary
civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in
criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable
mind to support a conclusion. This only applicable to administrative
cases like disbarment but unlike administrative cases, criminal cases
requires a higher degree of preponderance so the findings in an
administrative case cannot be binding in the criminal case.
VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL
[A.C. No. 1512. January 29, 1993.]
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty
Daarol, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. Barrientos first
knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college student, single. Atty. Daarol went
to her house because he was a friend of her sister, hence they also
became friends. She knew Daarol to be a single and as a General Manager
of ZANECO (electic cooperative). On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos’
house and asked her to be one of the usherettes in the Mason’s convention
so the latter said he should ask for the permission of her parents. They
consented and so she served as an usherette, Daarol picking her up and
taking her home everyday. In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioner’s house
and invited her for a joy ride, with the permission of her mother (who was
Daarol’s former classmate). They went to the beach and Daarol proposed
his love for Barrientos and told her that if she would accept him, he would
marry her within 6 months from her acceptance. After a few days of
courting, she accepted the offer of love. Visitations continued and they
agreed to get married in Dec 1973. In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a
party and when they left, he took her for a joy ride to an airport in Sicayab
where there were no houses around. There, he pressured her into having
sexual intercourse reiterating that he loved her, and that he would marry
her and that December was very near anyway they would marry soon. She
gave in after much hesitation because she loved him. She cried after the
deed. This event happened frequently thereafter during August to October
1973, where she consented because she loved him. Eventually, she
became pregnant and informed Daarol. He however suggested that she
have the baby aborted. She refused. He told her that she didn’t have to
worry because they were getting married soon anyway. In late October
1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her mother and told them that he
could not marry her because he was already married. He reassured them
though that he has been separated from his wife for 16 years and that he
would work for the annulment of his marriage and subsequently marry her.
So Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but eventually wasn’t able to
contact Daarol anymore (he went MIA).
ISSUE: W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
HELD/RATIO: YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by
respondent only after the complainant became pregnant. Even then,
respondent misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having
been estranged from his wife for 16 years and dangled a marriage proposal
on the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first marriage.
It was a deception after all as it turned out that respondent never bothered
to annul said marriage. Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of
his sexual desires at the expense of the gullible complainant. He is
perverted. He says that: "I see nothingwrong with this relationship despite
my being married." Worse, he even suggested abortion. Finally, respondent
even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such,
could enter into multiple marriages and has inquired into the possibility of
marrying complainant. As records indicate, however, his claim of having
embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any evidence save that of
his selfserving testimony. By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to
appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply demonstrated
his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is
in order
Advice:
Sexual desires should always be separated from work or in the
work place. Such desires must be kept in private for it is very
unprofessional for a lawyer or for any employee or employer for that
manner to engage in sexual activity or immoral activities in his capacity as
an employee or employer. My advice to the lawyer is that keep your sexual
desires to yourself especially when you know that such would hinder the
your growth as a professional.
BACULI V. BELEN
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179
FACTS:
September 24, 2012
Baculi, a Provincial Prosecutor, filed an Information against a
personaccused for frustrated homicide. Belen, a RTC Judge, directed
Baculi to submit evidence that the notice of preliminary investigation was
duly served and received by such person. After a series of pleadings filed
by Baculi, Belen directed the former why he should not be cited for tempt of
court for making unfounded statements in his pleadings. No such reason
was given, thus Belen found Baculi guilty of direct contempt for making
scurrilous (vulgar) and contumacious (rebellious) statements in one of the
latter's Motions, and subsequently for indirect contempt. Baculi moved that
such order be set aside, but was denied by Belen, stating that such
Decisions are final and executory. Therefore, Baculi filed a complaint
against Belen, denying the claims against him, and added that Belen was
induced by revenge because it was Baculi who indicted him in a previous
libel case against him, and that Belen had a 'power complex'.
ISSUE: W/N Belen is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for citing Baculi in
indirect contempt.
HELD: YES! Suspended for 6 months + Stern warning. RATIO: Gross
Ignorance of the Law Indirect contempt is any improper conduct tending,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice. The scurrilous and contumacious statements constitute direct
contempt because it is equivalent to misbehavior committed in the
presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of
justice. But such is not the reason for indirect contempt. And even if such
statements were considered as indirect contempt, Belen did not followthe
proper procedure under the Rules of Court. This strengthens the OCA's
findings that Belen is grossly ignorant of basic procedure. Unfamiliarity with
the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. Basic procedural rules must
be at the palm of his hands. When the law is so elementary, such as the
provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know, or to act as if one does not
know the same, and failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in
the law and the rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, from which no
one is excused, and surely not a judge like Belen.
Advice:
Improper behaviour towards the courts deserves a punishment,
it as if the lawyer does not honour the Judicial System and the presiding
officer which is the judge. My advice to the lawyer is that he must respect
the profession and the officers of the court because lawyering is the noblest
profession it is due a high degree of respect. If we do not respect the court
officers it is as if we do not respect justice in general making us
incompetent lawyers.