Oferta y cotización

A.C. No. 3452, June 23, 2014

Doctrine: A lawyer who willfully resorts to any falsehood in order to mislead the courts or his clients on the status of their causes exhibits his unworthiness to remain a member of the Law Profession. This is because he is always expected to be honest and forthright in his dealings with them. He thereby merits the condign sanction of suspension from the practice of law, if not disbarment.

Facts:

Complainant Samonte brought this administrative complaint against respondent Atty. AbelJana who had represented him as the plaintiff in a Civil Case. In the administrative complaint, Samonte enumerated the serious acts of professional misconduct by Atty. Abellana, to wit:

1. Falsification of documents, when Atty. Abellana made it appear that he had filed the Civil Case on June 10, 1988, conformably with their agreement, although the complaint was actually filed on June 14, 1988; 2. Dereliction of duty, when Atty. Abellana failed to: (a) file the reply vis-à-vis the answer with counterclaim, with his omission having delayed the pre-trial of the case; (b) inform the trial court beforehand that Samonte could not be available on a scheduled hearing, thereby incurring for the plaintiff’s side an unexplained absence detrimental to Samonte as the plaintiff; and (c) submit an exhibit required by the trial judge, only to eventually submit it three months later;

3. Gross negligence and tardiness in attending the scheduled hearings; and

4. Dishonesty for not issuing official receipts for every cash payments made by Samonte for his court appearances and his acceptance of the case.

Atty. Abellana denied the charge of falsification of documents, clarifying that the actual filing of the complaint could be made only on June 14, 1988 instead of June 10, 1988 because Samonte had not given enough money to cover the filing fees and other charges. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Abellana negligent in handling certain aspects of his client’s case and recommended the disbarment of Atty. Abellana, observing that apart from his negligent handling of portions of the civil case, said respondent has shown a facility for utilizing false and deceitful practices as a means to cover-up his delay and lack of diligence in pursuing the case of his client. The IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, suspended Atty. Abellana from the practice of law for one year.

Issue:

Ruling/Ratio:

Yes. A lawyer who willfully resorts to any falsehood in order to mislead the courts or his clients on the status of their causes exhibits his unworthiness to remain a member of the Law Profession. This is because he is always expected to be honest and forthright in his dealings with them. He thereby merits the condign sanction of suspension from the practice of law, if not disbarment. In his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and demanding, are the professional and ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full expression in the Lawyer’s Oath that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of the Law Profession. By the Lawyer’s Oath is every lawyer enjoined not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. It is by no means a coincidence; therefore, that honesty, integrity and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the CPR. Atty. Abellana abjectly failed the expectations of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in his dealings with Samonte as the client, and with the RTC as the trial court. He resorted to outright falsification by superimposing “0” on “4” in order to mislead Samonte into believing that he had already filed the complaint in court on June 10, 1988 as promised, instead of on June 14, 1988, the date when he had actually done so. Atty. He continued misleading Samonte in explaining his mishandling of the latter’s civil case. Worse, he also foisted his dishonesty on the Court no less. The finding on Atty. Abellana’s neglect in the handling of Samonte’s case was entirely warranted. He admitted being tardy in attending the hearings of the civil case. He filed the formal offer of evidence in behalf of his client way beyond the period to do so, a fact that he could not deny because the RTC Judge had himself expressly noted the belated filing in the order issued in the case. In the motion for reconsideration that he filed in the IBP Board of Governors, Atty. Abellana challenged the sufficiency of the proof presented against him by Samonte. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, clearly preponderant evidence is required to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent lawyers. Preponderant evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. The complainant’s evidence preponderantly established the administrative sins of Atty. Abellana. The falsehoods committed by Atty. Abellana, being aimed at misleading his client and the Court to bolster his unworthy denial of his neglect in the handling of the client's case, were unmitigated. Still, the Court must not close its eyes to the fact that Atty. Abellana actually finished presenting his client's case; and that the latter initiated the termination of Atty. Abellana's engagement as his counsel only after their relationship had been tainted with mistrust. Thus, we determine the proper sanction. For Atty. Abellana, therefore, suspension from the practice of law for six months with warning of a more severe sanction upon a repetition suffices.

LAWYER’S OATH; RULE 1.01, CANON 1; RULE 7.03, CANON 7, CPR Benjamin Ong vs. Atty. William Delos Santos

A.C. No. 10179 (Formerly CBD 11–2985), March 04, 2014

Doctrine: Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

Facts:

According to complainant Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice and his good paying clients. Convinced, Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos the amount of P100,000 in exchange for the latter’s postdated check. However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was closed. Ong demanded immediate payment to Atty. Delos Santos, but the latter just ignored him. When efforts to collect remained futile, Ong

brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of BP 22. Ong also brought this disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the IBP. The IBP Bar Commissioner stated that Ong had sufficiently established the existence of the dishonored check. He recommended that Atty. Delos Santos be held liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of IBP Commissioner.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. William F. Delos Santos shall be held administratively liable Ruling/Ratio:

Yes. We agree with the findings of the IBP but modify the recommended penalty. Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. BP Blg. 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account users. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. Being a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was well aware of the objectives and coverage of BP Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated BP Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer’s Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the laws. He also took for granted the express commands of the CPR, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03. Moreover, in issuing the dishonored check, Atty. Delos Santos put into serious question not only his personal integrity but also the integrity of the entire Integrated Bar. It cannot be denied that Ong acceded to Atty. Delos Santos’ request for encashment of the check because of his complete reliance on the nobility of the Legal Profession. Accordingly, Atty. Delos Santos was guilty of serious misconduct, warranting appropriate administrative sanction. Noting that the criminal complaint charging him with the violation of BP Blg. 22 was already dismissed, and that he already repaid to Ong the full amount of P100,000, both of which are treated as mitigating circumstances in his favor, we find the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend him from the practice of law for a period of three years harsh. Thus, we reduce the penalty to suspension from the practice of law to six months.