Olbes vs Deciembre Digest

Spouses FRANKLIN and LOURDES OLBES,  complainants DECI EMBRE, respondent vs. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE AC-!". Ap#$% &', &((

Doctrine:

Constituting a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility was the malevolent act of respondent, who lled up the blank checks entrusted to him as security for a loan by writing on those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at all, despite his full knowledge that the loan they were meant to secure had already been paid Facts:

Spouses Olbes allege that they were government employees working at the Central Post Oce, anila! and that "ranklin was a letter carrier and #ourdes a mail sorter$ %hrough respondent, #ourdes renewed her application for a loan from Rodela #oans, &nc$, in the amount of P'(,((($ )s security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent ve P*+ blank checks which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that might be obtained in the future$ %hereafter, #ourdes paid respondent the amount corresponding to the loan plus surcharges, penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt$ *otwithstanding *otwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent respondent lled up the blank checks entrusted to him by writing on those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and deposited the same checks which were dishonored upon presentment because the account is already closed$  %hereafter,  %hereafter, he led a criminal criminal case against against complainants complainants for estafa estafa and for violation violation of +$P$ $  %hus, complainants complainants led a veried petition for the disbarment disbarment of )tty )tty$$ -eciembre -eciembre and charged charged the respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsication and conduct unbecoming a member of the +ar$ Issue:

.hether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules '$(' and /$(0 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held:

embership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions$ &t is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character$ 1) lawyer is an oath2bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by in3e4ible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the 5uest for truth and 6ustice, for which he 7or she8 has sworn to be a fearless crusader$9 +y taking the lawyer:s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of 6ustice$ #awyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public:s faith in the legal profession$ &n the present case, the &+P commissioner gave credence to the story of petitioners, who said that they had given ve blank personal checks to respondent at the Central Post Oce in anila as security for the P'(,((( loan they had contracted$ contracted$ "ound untrue untrue and unbelievable was respondent:s assertion that they had lled up the checks and e4changed these with his cash at ;ue