Team Pyolow

7/23/2019 Team Pyolow

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/team-pyolow 1/8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 2387 September 10, 1998

CLETO DOCENA, complainant,vs.

ATTY. DOMNADOR !. LMON, respondent.

PER CURAM"

On April 1, 1!"#, a complaint for disbarment $as filed b% Cleto &ocena a'ainst Att%. &ominador (.

)imon, *r., on 'rounds of malpractice, 'ross misconduct, and violation of attorne%+s oath.

t appears that respondent Att%. )imon $as complainant+s la$%er on appeal in Civil Case No. -# for

orcible Entr%. /hile the appeal $as pendin' before the then Court of irst nstance of Eastern

*amar, Branch , respondent re0uired therein defendantsappellants &ocena spouses to post a

supersedeas bond in the amount of P12,222.22 alle'edl% to sta% the e3ecution of the appealed

decision.

4o raise the re0uired amount complainant Cleto &ocena obtained a loan of P5,222.22 from the

Boron'an, Eastern *amar Branch of the &evelopment Ban6 of the Philippines7 borro$ed P#,1-2.22

from a private individual7 and applied for an a'ricultural loan of P-,"82.22 from the Boron'an, *amar

Branch of the Philippine National Ban6, $herein respondent himself acted as 'uarantor 9tsn, *ession

of :ul% ", 1!"5, pp. 555-;. 4he amount of P-,"82.22 $as produced b% complainant in response torespondent+s letter dated *eptember #, 1!<! 9E3h. =C=, tsn, p. #8, ibid .; demandin' deliver% of the

aforesaid amount, thus>

&ear Mr. and Mrs. &ocena>

$ish to remind %ou that toda% is the last da% for the deposit of the balance of

P-,"82.22.

Att%. Batica $as in court %esterda% verif%in' $hether %ou have deposited the said

balance and the ?onorable :ud'e informed him that %ou have until toda% to deposit

the said amount.

$ish to inform %ou also that the ?onorable :ud'e $ill be in *ta. e tomorro$ for

rural service.

/e $ill be $aitin' for %ou tomorro$ *eptember ##, 1!<!, at *ta. e as %ou

promised.

@er% trul% %ours,



9*i'ned;

On November 1-, 1!"2, the Court of irst nstance of Eastern *amar rendered a decision on the

appealed case in favor of the &ocena spouses.

After receipt of said decision, complainant $ent to the C to $ithdra$ the supersedeas bond of

P12,222.22, but he thereupon discovered that no such bond $as ever posted b% respondent.

/hen confronted, respondent promised to restitute the amount, but he never complied $ith such

underta6in' despite repeated demands from the &ocena spouses.

n his ans$er to the herein complaint, respondent claimed that the P12,222.22 $as his attorne%+s

fees for representin' the &ocena spouses in their appeal. But this selfservin' alle'ation is belied b%

the letter 90uoted above; of respondent himself demandin' from the &ocena spouses the balance of

P-,"82.22 supposedl% to be deposited in court to sta% the e3ecution of the appealed decision of the

M4C. Moreover, the fact that he had promised to return the P12,222.22 to the &ocena spouses is

also an admission that the mone% $as never his, and that it $as onl% entrusted to him for deposit.

After due investi'ation and hearin', the nte'rated Bar of the Philippines recommended that

respondent be suspended from the practice of la$ for one %ear and ordered to return the amount of

P",22.22 9he had earlier paid complainant P1,22.22, but nothin' more; $ithin 1 month from

notice, and should he fail to do so, he shall be suspended indefinitel%.

4he Court finds the recommended penalt% too li'ht. 4rul%, the amount involved ma% be small, but the

nature of the trans'ression calls for a heavier sanction. 4he Code of Professional Responsibilit%

mandates that>

Canon 1. 333 333 333

Rule 1.21 A la$%er shall not en'a'e in unla$ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitfulconduct.

Canon 18. 333 333 333

Canon 18.21 A la$%er shall account for all mone% or propert% collected or received

from the client.

Respondent infrin'ed and breached these rules. @eril%, 'ood moral character is not onl% a condition

precedent to admission to the le'al profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in order to

maintain one+s 'ood standin' in character that e3clusive and honored fraternit% 9@illanueva vs. Att%.

4eresita *ta. Ana , #- *CRA <2< 1!!;.

t has been said time and a'ain, and this $e cannot overemphasiDe, that the la$ is not a trade nor a

craft but a profession 9A'palo, )e'al Ethics, 1!"5, p. 1;. ts basic ideal is to render public service

and to secure ustice for those $ho see6 its aid. Ma%er vs. *tate Bar, # Call#d <1, 5! P#d #28

91!5-;, cited in A'palo, id . f it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal,

those enrolled in its ran6s should not onl% master its tenets and principles but should also, b% their

lives, accord continuin' fidelit% to them. 9A'palo, id .; B% e3tortin' mone% from his client throu'h

deceit and misrepresentation, respondent )imon has reduced the la$ profession to a level so base,



so lo$ and dishonorable, and most contemptible. ?e has sullied the inte'rit% of his brethren in the

la$ and has, indirectl%, eroded the peoples+ confidence in the udicial s%stem. B% his reprehensible

conduct, $hich is reflective of his depraved character, respondent has made himself un$orth% to

remain in the Roll of Attorne%s. ?e should be disbarred.

/?EREORE, respondent Att%. &ominador (. )imon, *r. is hereb% &*BARRE&. 4he Office of the

Cler6 of Court is directed to stri6e out his name from the Roll of Attorne%s. Respondent is li6e$ise

ordered to return the amount of P",22.22, the balance of the mone% entrusted to him b%

complainant &ocena, $ithin one 91; month from the finalit% of this &ecision.

*O OR&ERE&.

A.M. No. 133# No$ember 28, 1989

ROSARO DELOS REYES, complainant,vs.

ATTY. %OSE &. A'NAR, respondent.

Federico A. Blay for complainant.

Luciano Babiera for respondent.

RE*O)F4ON

PER CURAM"

4his is a complaint for disbarment filed a'ainst respondent on the 'round of 'ross immoralit%.

Complainant, a second %ear medical student of the *outh$estern Fniversit% 9Cebu;, alle'ed in her

verified complaint that respondent Att%. :ose B. ADnar, then chairman of said universit%, had carnal

6no$led'e of her for several times under threat that she $ould fail in her Patholo'% subect if she

$ould not submit to respondent+s lustful desires. Complainant further alle'ed that $hen she became

pre'nant, respondent, throu'h a certain &r. Gil Ramas, had her under'o forced abortion.

n compliance $ith the Resolution of the Court dated :ul% !, 1!<-, respondent filed his Ans$er

den%in' an% personal 6no$led'e of complainant as $ell as all the alle'ations contained in the

complaint and b% $a% of special defense, averred that complainant is a $oman of loose moralit%.

On *eptember #, 1!<-, the Court Resolved to refer the case to the *olicitor General for

investi'ation, report and recommendation.

4he findin's of the *olicitor General is summariDed as follo$s>

E@&ENCE OR 4?E COMP)ANAN4



Complainant Rosario delos Re%es testified that>

1; she $as a second %ear medical student of the *outh$estern

Fniversit%, the Chairman of the Board of $hich $as respondent :ose

B. ADnar 9pp. 11, 1, tsn, :une 8, 1!<;7

#; she ho$ever failed in her Patholo'% subect $hich prompted her to

approach respondent in the latter+s house $ho assured her that she

$ould pass the said subect 9pp. 1,18, #8, 55, tsn, :une 8, 1!<;7

5; despite this assurance, ho$ever, she failed 9p. 55, tsn, :une 8,

1!<;7

-; sometime in ebruar%, 1!<5, respondent told her that she should

'o $ith him to Manila, other$ise, she $ould flun6 in all her subects

9pp. -#, 2, tsn, :une 8, 1!<;7 ... ... ... 7

; on ebruar% 1#, 1!<5, both respondent and complainant boardedthe same plane 9E3h. =A=; for Manila7 from the Manila &omestic

Airport, the% proceeded to Room !2, !th loor of the Ambassador

?otel $here the% sta%ed for three da%s 9E3hs. =H=, =H1= to =H8=7 p.

, tsn, :une 8, 1 !<;7

8; after arrivin' at the Ambassador ?otel, the% dined at a *panish

restaurant at *an Marcelino, Malate, Manila for around three hours

9pp 8<, tsn, :une 8, 1!<;7

<; the% returned to the hotel at around t$elve o+cloc6 midni'ht, $here

respondent had carnal 6no$led'e of her t$ice and then thrice the

ne3t mornin' 9p. !, tsn, :une 8, 1!<7 pp. 1-, 1 I 1<, tsn, :ul%1", 1!<;7

"; complainant consented to the se3ual desires of respondent

because for her, she $ould sacrifice her personal honor rather than

fail in her subects 9p.8l, tsn, :une 8, 1!<;7 ... ... ...7

!; sometime in March, 1!<5, complainant told respondent that she

$as suspectin' pre'nanc% because she missed her menstruation 9p.

<8, tsn, :ul% 1<, 1!<;7 ... ... ...7

12; later, she $as informed b% &r. Monsanto 9an instructor in the

colle'e of medicine; that respondent $anted that an abortion be

performed upon her 9p."#, tsn, :ul% l<, 1!<;7 ... ... ... 7

11; thereafter, Ruben CruD, a confidant of respondent, and &r.

Monsato fetched her at her boardin' house on the prete3t that she

$ould be e3amined b% &r. Gil Ramas 9pp. "<"", tsn, :ul% 1<, 1!<;7



1#; upon reachin' the clinic of &r. Ramas she $as 'iven an inection

and an inhalation mas6 $as placed on her mouth and nose 9pp. ""

!2, tsn, :ul% 1<, 1 !<;7

15; as a result, she lost consciousness and $hen she $o6e up, an

abortion had alread% been performed upon her and she $as $ea6,

bleedin' and felt pain all over her bod% 9pp. !2!1, tsn, :ul% 1<,

1!<;7 ... ... ... 9Rollo, pp. 5"-2;

Monica GutierreD 4an testified that she met complainant and a man $hom

complainant introduced as Att%. ADnar in front of the Ambassador ?otel 9pp. 1"51"-,

tsn, *ept. 12, 1!<7 Rollo, p. -1;.

&r. Rebecca Gucor and &r. Artemio n'co, $itnesses for the complainant, testified that abdominal

e3aminations and 3ra% e3amination of the lumbrosacral re'ion of complainant sho$ed no si'ns of

abnormalit% 9Rollo, p. -#;.

4he evidence for the respondent as reported b% the *olicitor General is summariDed as follo$s>

Edilberto Caban testified that>

1. n &ecember, 1!<#, respondent Att%. ADnar sta%ed at Ambassador

?otel $ith his $ife and children7 respondent never came to Manila

e3cept in &ecember, 1!<#7 9pp. "!,. tsn, Nov. #-, 1!<<;7

#. ?e usuall% slept $ith respondent ever%time the latter comes to

Manila 9p. 15, tsn, Nov. #-, 1!<<7 Rollo, pp. -#-5;.

Oscar *alan'san', another $itness for the respondent stated that>

1. n ebruar%, 1!<5, he $ent to Ambassador ?otel to meet

respondent7 the latter had male companions at the hotel but he did

not see an% $oman companion of respondent ADnar7

#. ?e usuall% slept $ith respondent at the Ambassador ?otel and ate

$ith him outside the hotel to'ether $ith Caban 9pp. "!, 151, tsn,

:an. 15, 1!<"7 Rollo, p. -5;.

4he Court notes that throu'hout the period of the investi'ation conducted b% the *olicitor General,

respondent ADnar $as never presented to refute the alle'ations made a'ainst him.

n his Ans$er, respondent ADnar alle'es that he does not have an% 6no$led'e of the alle'ations in

the complaint. As special defense, respondent further alle'ed that the char'e levelled a'ainst him is

in furtherance of complainant+s vo$ to $rec6 ven'eance a'ainst respondent b% reason of the latter+s

approval of the recommendation of the Board of 4rustees barrin' complainant from enrollment for

the school %ear 1!<51!<- because she failed in most of her subects. t is li6e$ise contended that

the defense did not bother to present respondent in the investi'ation conducted b% the *olicitor

General because nothin' has been sho$n in the hearin' to prove that respondent had carnal

6no$led'e of the complainant.



Contrar% to respondent+s averments, the *olicitor General made a cate'orical findin' to the effect

that respondent had carnal 6no$led'e of complainant, to $it>

rom the fore'oin', it is clear that complainant $as compelled to 'o to Manila $ith

respondent upon the threat of respondent that if she failed to do so, she $ould flun6

in all her subects and she $ould never become a medical intern 9pp. -#, 2, tsn,

:une 8, 1!<;. As respondent $as Chairman of the Colle'e of Medicine, complainant

had ever% reason to believe him.

t has been established also that complainant $as brou'ht b% respondent to

Ambassador ?otel in Manila for three da%s $here he repeatedl% had carnal

6no$led'e of her upon the threat that if she $ould not 'ive in to his lustful desires,

she $ould fail in her Patholo'% subect 9E3hs. =A=, =H=, =H1= to =H8= pp. 1, #,

!, tsn, :une 8, 1!<;7

333 333 333

On the other hand, respondent did not bother to appear durin' the hearin'. t is truethat he presented Edilberto Caban and Oscar *alan'san' $ho testified that

respondent usuall% slept $ith them ever% time the latter came to Manila, but their

testimon% 9sic; is not much of help. None of them mentioned durin' the hearin' that

the% sta%ed and slept $ith respondent on ebruar% 1# to ebruar% 1-, 1!<5 at

Ambassador ?otel. ... ... ... Besides, Edilberto Caban testified that respondent sta%ed

at Ambassador ?otel $ith his $ife and children in &ecember, 1!<#. 4he dates in

0uestion, ho$ever, are ebruar% 1# to 1-, 1!<5, inclusive. ?is 9Caban+s; testimon%,

therefore, is immaterial to the present case= 9Rollo, pp. -5--;.

n effect, the *olicitor General found that the char'e of immoralit% a'ainst respondent ADnar has

been substantiated b% sufficient evidence both testimonial and documentar%7 $hile findin'

insufficient and uncorroborated the accusation of intentional abortion. 4he *olicitor General thenrecommends the suspension of respondent from the practice of la$ for a period of not less than

three 95; %ears.

On March 18, 1!"!, the Court Resolved to re0uire the parties to Move in the premises to determine

$hether an% intervenin' event occurred $hich $ould render the case moot and academic 9Rollo, p.

8!;.

On April 1#, 1!"!, the *olicitor General filed a manifestation and motion pra%in' that the case at bar

be considered submitted for decision on the bases of the report and recommendation previousl%

submitted to'ether $ith the record of the case and the evidence adduced 9Rollo, p. <;.

After a thorou'h revie$ of the records, the Court a'rees $ith the findin' of the *olicitor General that

respondent ADnar, under the facts as stated in the Report of the investi'ation conducted in the case,

is 'uilt% of ='rossl% immoral conduct= and ma% therefore be removed or suspended b% the *upreme

Court for conduct unbecomin' a member of the Bar 9*ec. #<, Rule 15", Rules of Court;.

Respondent failed to adduce evidence sufficient to en'ender doubt as to his culpabilit% of the

offense imputed upon him. /ith the e3ception of the selfservin' testimonies of t$o $itnesses



presented on respondent+s behalf, the records are bereft of evidence to e3onerate respondent of the

act complained of, much less contradict, on material points, the testimonies of complainant herself.

/hile respondent denied havin' ta6en complainant to the Ambassador ?otel and there had se3ual

intercourse $ith the latter, he did not present an% evidence to sho$ $here he $as at that date. /hile

this is not a criminal proceedin', respondent $ould have done more than 6eep his silence if he reall%

felt unustl% traduced.

t is the dut% of a la$%er, $henever his moral character is put in issue, to satisf% this Court that he is

a fit and proper person to eno% continued membership in the Bar. ?e cannot dispense $ith nor

do$n'rade the hi'h and e3actin' moral standards of the la$ profession 9Go v. Cando%, #1 *CRA

-5! 1!8<;. As once pronounced b% the Court>

/hen his inte'rit% is challen'ed b% evidence, it is not enou'h that he denies the

char'es a'ainst him7 he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the

relator 9)e'al and :udicial Ethics, b% Malcolm, p. !5; and sho$ proofs that he still

maintains the hi'hest de'ree of moralit% and inte'rit%, $hich at all times is e3pected

of him. ... n the case of United States v. Tria, 1< Phil. 525, :ustice Moreland,spea6in' for the Court, said>

An accused person sometimes o$es a dut% to himself if not to the *tate. f he does

not perform that dut%, he ma% not al$a%s e3pect the *tate to perform it for him. f he

fails to meet the obli'ation $hich he o$es to himself, $hen to meet it is the easiest of

eas% thin's, he is hard% indeed if he demand and e3pect that same full and $ide

consideration $hich the *tate voluntaril% 'ives to those $ho b% reasonable effort

see6 to help themselves. 4his is particularl% so $hen he not onl% declines to help

himself but activel% conceals from the *tate the ver% means b% $hich it ma% assist

him 9(uin'$a *CRA -5! 1!8<;.

4he *olicitor General recommends that since the complainant is partl% to blame for havin' 'one $ithrespondent to Manila 6no$in' full% $ell that respondent is a married man ,$ith children, respondent

should merel% be suspended from the practice of la$ for not less than three 95; %ears 9Rollo, p. -<;.

On the other hand, respondent in his manifestation and motion dated April 1", 1!"! alle'es that

since a period of about ten 912; %ears had alread% elapsed from the time the *olicitor General made

his recommendation for a three 95; %ears suspension and respondent is not practicin' his profession

as a la$%er, the court ma% no$ consider the respondent as havin' been suspended durin' the said

period and the case dismissed for bein' moot and academic.

/e disa'ree.

Complainant filed the instant case for disbarment not because respondent rene'ed on a promise to

marr% 9(uin'$a v. Puno, supra;. More importantl%. complainant+s 6no$led'e of of respondent+s

marital status is not at issue in the case at bar. Complainant submitted to respondent+s solicitation for

se3ual intercourse not because of a desire for se3ual 'ratification but because of respondent+s moral

ascendanc% over her and fear that if she $ould not accede, she $ould flun6 in her subects. As

chairman of the colle'e of medicine $here complainant $as enrolled, the latter had ever% reason to

believe that respondent could ma6e 'ood his threats. Moreover, as counsel for respondent $ould

deem it =$orth$hile to inform the the Court that the respondent is a scion of a rich famil% and a ver%



rich man in his o$n ri'ht and in fact is not practicin' his profession before the court= 9Rollo, p. <2;,

mere suspension for a limited period, per se, $ould therefore serve no redeemin' purpose. 4he fact

that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a la$%er, does not render respondent a

person of 'ood moral character. Evidence of 'ood moral character precedes admission to bar

9*ec.#, Rule 15", Rules of Court; and such re0uirement is not dispensed $ith upon admission

thereto. Good moral character is a continuin' 0ualification necessar% to entitle one to continue in the

practice of la$. 4he ancient and learned profession of la$ e3acts from its members the hi'heststandard of moralit% 9(uin'$a v. Puno, supra;.

Fnder *ection #<, Rule 15", =9a; member of the bar ma% be removed or suspended from his office

as attorne% b% the *upreme Court for an% deceit, malpractice, or other 'ross misconduct in such

office, 'rossl% immoral conduct, or b% reason of his conviction of a crime involvin' moral turpitude, or

for an% violation of the oath $hich he is re0uired to ta6e before admission to practice, ... = n Arciga

v. Maniwang 9128 *CRA !1, 1!"1;, this Court had occasion to define the concept of immoral

conduct, as follo$s>

A la$%er ma% be disbarred for 'rossl% immoral conduct, or b% reason of his

conviction of a crime involvin' moral turpitude. A member of the bar should have

moral inte'rit% in addition to professional probit%.

t is difficult to state $ith precision and to fi3 an infle3ible standard as to $hat is

'rossl% immoral conduct or to specif% the moral delin0uenc% and obli0uit% $hich

render a la$%er un$orth% of continuin' as a member of the bar. 4he rule implies that

$hat appears to be unconventional behavior to the strai'htlaced ma% not be the

immoral conduct that $arrants disbarment.

mmoral conduct has been defined as +that $hich is $illful, fla'rant, or shameless,

and $hich sho$s a moral indifference to the opinion of the 'ood and respectable

members of the communit%+ 9< C.:.*. !!;.

/here an unmarried female d$arf possessin' the intellect of a child became

pre'nant b% reason of intimac% $ith a married la$%er $ho $as the father of si3

children, disbarment of the attorne% on the 'round of immoral conduct $as ustified

9n re ?ic6s #2 Pac. #nd "!8;.

n the present case, it $as hi'hl% immoral of respondent, a married man $ith children, to have ta6en

advanta'e of his position as chairman of the colle'e of medicine in as6in' complainant, a student in

said colle'e, to 'o $ith him to Manila $here he had carnal 6no$led'e of her under the threat that

she $ould flun6 in all her subects in case she refused.

/?EREORE, respondent :ose B. ADnar is hereb% &*BARRE& and his name is ordered stric6en

off from the Roll of Attorne%s.

*O OR&ERE&.

Documents

Team Pyolow