Businos v Ricafort.docx

1 Attorney’s Oath Busińos v Ricafort A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997 Facts: Respondent Atty. Ricafort was the counsel of records of herein complainant in a civil case wherein he was appointed to be the true and lawful attorney-in-fact of complainant to represent, testify and collect the sum of money from the court. Respondent received the amount from the court and Oas Standard High School which was entrusted to him by herein complainant to deposit the same to the bank account of complainant’s husband. However, instead of depositing the money, herein respondent used the same for his personal use and despite of several demands of complainant, he failed to return the money which forced complainant to file a criminal case, administrative case and disbarment case against him. Complainant further accused him for demanding and receiving Php 2,000.00 which he said will be used for the bond in civil case which was never really required in the said case. The court issued several resolutions against respondent but he did not comply. The court decided that he deemed to have waived his right to file his comment. On the third hearing of the estafa case against respondent, he came to the court with the money and paid complainant which made her not to pursue with the esafa case but did not withdraw the instant complaint. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort violated his lawyer’s oath. Held: Yes. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients and is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his client, his profession, the courts and the public. The Court then resolved to disbar Atty. Ricafort from the practice of law 7 Facts: Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the relationship between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail. According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When respondent met Carlos Ui,

she had known him to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing their relationship. When respondent knew of the real status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived with his children to allow them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent however presented a misrepresented copy of her marriage contract. Issue: W/N Atty Bonifacio acted in an Immoral manner. Held: The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. In the case at bar, Atty. Bonifacio was not proven to have conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner. Thus, the case is dismissed. But she is reprimanded and given a stern warning with regards to the of her marriage contract with an inculcated date.