Case Digest Legal Ethics St Advincula

Advincula vs Macabata Facts: Cynthia Advincula seeks the advice of Atty. Macabata in her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. Despite receiving demand letter from Advincula, Queensway failed to settle the said collectibles to the former. Atty. Macabata and Advincula started to discuss the possibility of filing the case. The meeting happened twice in a meeting outside the office. During these incidents, Atty. Macabata offered a ride to Advincule to send her home and right before Advincule stepped out of the car, Atty. Macabata kissed her on the cheeks and embraced her tightly. On the second incident, Atty Macabata, after kissing her on the lips, made his advances on touching Advincula’s breast. At this time, Advincula tried to resist Atty Macabata’s criminal intent and managed to go out of the car. Due to said consecutive incident, Advincula decided to refer her case with another lawyer but she needs to get back her case folder from Atty. Macabata. They exchanged text messages where Advincula informed Atty Macabata of her decision to get another lawyer because of the latter’s advances and in return, the latter apologized. Advincula filed a Disbarment case against Atty. Macabata. In Respondent’s claim, he mentioned that everything happened very spontaneously with no reaction from her. Such that, there was no force, no intimidation, no lewd designs displayed and no breast holding was done. The IBP passed a resolution in favor of the Advincula. Atty Macabata was SUSPENDED from the practive of law for 3 months on the ground that his behavior went beyond the norms of conduct required of a lawyer when dealing with or relating with a client. Issue: WON Atty. Macabata committed acts that are grossly immoral that would warrant Disbarment or Suspension. Ruling: No. The acts of kissing a client on the lips are distasteful however such act cannot be considered as grossly immoral. In the case at bar, Atty. Macabata admitted kissing the Advincula but elucidated that everything happened very spontaneously. Immoral conduct was defined as an act, which is willful, flagrant (scandalous) and shameless. To warrant disbarment or suspension, such act must be gross that it constitutes a criminal intent, unprincipled and disgraceful to the highest degree. Advincula failed to provide proof of evidence against her charges, which the court considered it as a mere allegations such that Atty Macabata took advantage of his position being a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations. Toledo vs Abalos Facts: Atty. Erlina Abalos obtained a lone of P20K from Priscilla Toleda in which she failed to pay within the agreed period of six months. Despite repeated demands, still she failed to pay her obligation.

Priscilla then took necessary actions by seeking help from the IBP, which was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline then issued an order directing Atty Abalos to filed her answer but she did not answer the complaint. A hearing was set but still she failed to appear, therefore Toledo was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte. The case was then submitted for resolution and while she received the order, she did not do anything about it. Again, she ignored the order of the court. The Commission passed the resolution recommending the suspension from practice of Atty Toledo for a period of 6 months for consistently ignoring the orders of the court and violation of her oath of office as a lawyer. The Commission, however declined to discipline Atty Abalos for her failure to pay his obligation because it was incurred in her private capacity. Issue: WON Atty Abalos’ failue to pay his obligation warrants Disbarment? Ruling: No. The complained failure of Atty Abalos to pay his obligation does not pertain to an act committed in the exercise of her profession. Therefore it is not within the jurisdiction of IBP to discipline Atty Abalos. The court ruled that the Commission’s recommendation to suspend Atty Abalos in 6 months o the ground of her failure to appear before the commission is disproportionate. As a lawyer, herself, Atty Abalos is all aware that the Commission has no jusrisdiction over the complaint for the collection of a sum of money which she borrowed in her private capacity. Therefore , her resolute refusal to appear before the Commission. Toledo’s remedy is to file a collection case before a regular court of justice against Atty Abalos to recover the amount, the latter, owed her. The court now impose a suspension from the practice of law for a period of 1 month from the date of the finality of the Resolution.

Lao vs Medel Facts: The case stemmed from Atty Robert Medel’s refusal to make good in 4 RCBC checks comprising a total amount of P22K issued to Engr Selwyn Lao. Numerous settlements to pay the obligations were committed but nothing was performed. Engr Lao filed an administrative case before the IBP Commissions on Bar Discipline against Atty Medel. The latter contended that it was Engr Lao rejected all this proposals to settle his obligations that made him unable to comply with his promise to pay the complainant.

He maintained that such act does not constitute a valid ground for disciplinary action because it is merely a violation of BP22 which is a special law and is not punishable under the RPC. He further contends that: Under Sec 27 Rule 138 of the Rules of court, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any: o Deceit o Malpractice o Other Gross Misconduct in such office o Grossly Immoral Conduct o By Reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude o For any violation of the oath, which he is required to take before admission to practice o For a willfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court o For corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without the authority to do so. o The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. That if he will be punished by the Supreme Court under Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Rules for the issuance of worthless checks for payment of a pre-existing obligation to the complainant in violation of BP22, it would be cruel and unjust law. -

That under Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Rules, violation of BP22 is NOT one of the grounds for disciplinary action against a member of the bar, to warrant his disbarment or suspension for his office as attorney.

-

That the issuance of a worthless check by a member of the bar, in violation of BP22, does NOT constitute DISHONES, IMMORAL or DECEITFUL conduct under Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The MERE issuance of a worthless check, the Supreme Court is inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In his reply, the IBP-CBP scheduled the case for hearing on October 4, 2001cand during the proceeding, the parties managed to agree that Atty Medel will pay the principal debt of P22K until July 4, 2002. The payment for Attorney’s fees will be dwelled on the next hearing.

In the next hearing, while waiting for their case to be called, Atty. Medel insisted to leave because there is family emergency that he needs to attend. He even shouted to the Commissioner who is hearing all the cases that his family is more important this this outstanding disbarment case. Despite objection of the complainant’s party and the commissioner, he arrogantly left and failed to comply with his indebtedness. IBP recommended Atty Medel for suspension from the practice of law for 2 years on the grounds of violation of Lawyer’s oath and Code of Professional Responsibility such that violation of BP22 is a crime involving moral turpitude. He committed not 1 but 4 counts of violation of BP22. His refusal to pay his indebtedness, his broken promises, his arrogant attitude towards complainant’s counsel and with the commissioner warrants the sanctions against him. Issue: WON Atty Medel’s violation of BP22 warrants disbarment? Ruling: No. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his professional or private capacity. However, a general rule comes with many exceptions. In the event that a lawyer fell short of an exacting standards expected of him and he had put his moral character in serious doubt, the court have the right to discipline the erring member of the bar. The evidence clearly shows that Atty Medel’s propensity to issue bad checks. Such act put his moral character in serious doubt. However, the Commission does not find him a hopeless case in the light of the fact that he eventually paid his obligations to Engr Lao, although very much delayed. The court found Atty Medel guilty of gross misconduct and thereby Suspending him for 1 year from practice of law.