You are on page 1of 3

MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS, respondent.

D E C I S I O N PER CURIAM: For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as lawyer, respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment. The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), in its Report, are as follows: Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary documents required for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00). On December 1, 1992 the complainant made a partial payment of the required fee in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), which was received by Ester Calis, wife of the respondent for which a receipt was issued. From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several conferences with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel documents. To facilitate the processing, respondent demanded an additional amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) and prevailed upon complainant to resign from her job as stenographer with the Commission on Human Rights. On June 20, 1994, to expedite the processing of her travel documents complainant issued Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) in favor of Atty. D. Calis who issued a receipt. After receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the complainant copies of Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of questions which would be asked during interviews. When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed identity. Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong. Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the required fee which was paid by complainant, but the corresponding receipt was not given to her. When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant that it will be given to her on her departure which was scheduled on September 6, 1994. On said date complainant was given her passport and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together with Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel who were also recruits of the respondent. Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with Jennyfer Belo and Maribel were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying spurious travel documents; Complainant contacted the respondent through overseas telephone call and informed him of by her predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994, complainant was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore. On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and respondent fetched her from the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Respondent took complainants passport with a promise that he will secure new travel documents for complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).

On June 4, 1996, June 18 and July 5, 1996 respondent made partial refunds of P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00. On December 19, 1996 the complainant through counsel, sent a demand letter to respondent for the refund of a remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00) which was ignored by the respondent. Sometime in March 1997 the complainant went to see the respondent, however his wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attending to business matters. In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out that the respondent had transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility. Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid by complainant, applications for U.S.A. Visa, questions and answers asked during interviews; receipts acknowledging partial refunds of fees paid by the complainant together with demand letter for the remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00); which was received by the respondent. Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment on the complaint, there was no response. Respondent likewise failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the case. No appearance whatsoever was made by the respondent. As a result of the inexplicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with the orders of the Commission, the investigation against him proceeded ex parte. On September 24, 1998, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report on the case, finding that: It appears that the services of the respondent was engaged for the purpose of securing a visa for a U.S.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention of job placement or employment abroad, hence it is not correct to say that the respondent engaged in illegal recruitment. The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure the U.S.A. visa for the complainant under an assumed name was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit on the part of the respondent. Noted likewise is the partial refunds made by the respondent of the fees paid by the complainant. However, the transfer of residence without a forwarding address indicates his attempt to escape responsibility. In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar until he fully refunds the fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this administrative case was elevated to the IBP Board of Governors for review. The Board in a Resolution dated December 4, 1998 resolved to adopt and approve with amendment the recommendation of the Commission. The Resolution of the Board states: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decisions as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with an amendment that Respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis be DISBARRED for having been found guilty of Gross Misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

We are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the IBP recommendation contained in its Resolution dated December 4, 1998, with its supporting report. After examination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we find the resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP in order. We agree with the finding of the Commission that the charge of illegal recruitment was not established because complainant failed to substantiate her allegation on the matter. In fact she did not mention any particular job or employment promised to her by the respondent. The only service of the respondent mentioned by the complainant was that of securing a visa for the United States. We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that herein respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material gain. Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character. This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty of complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents. How often have victims of unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign lands because they were provided fake travel documents? Respondent totally disregarded the personal safety of the complainant when he sent her abroad on false assurances. Not only are respondents acts illegal, they are also detestable from the moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and the administration of justice. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be heard. Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant. Lastly, the grant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the P114,000.00 she paid the respondent is in order. Respondent not only unjustifiably refused to return the complainants money upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in holding on to it, unmindful of the hardship and humiliation suffered by the complainant. WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be FURNISHED to the IBP and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal records of respondent. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay to the complainant immediately the amount of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos representing the amount he collected from her. SO ORDERED.

ELSIE B. AROMIN, FE B. YABUT, TIBURCIO B. BALLESTEROS, JR., and JULIAN B. BALLESTEROS, complainants, vs. ATTY. VALENTIN O. BONCAVIL, respondent. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: This is a complaint filed by Elsie B. Aromin, Fe B. Yabut, Tiburcio B. Ballesteros, Jr., and Julian B. Ballesteros against Atty. Valentin O. Boncavil for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainants allege that their late father, Tiburcio Ballesteros, engaged the services of respondent as counsel in two cadastral cases then pending in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Pagadian City, to wit: Cadastral Case No. N14, LRC CAD RMC No. N-475, Lot No. 6576, Pls-119, entitled The Director of Lands, Petitioner, v. Faustina Calibo, Claimant, v. Tiburcio Ballesteros, Claimant, and Cadastral Case No. N-14, LRC CAD. REG. No. N-475, Lot No. 7098, Pls-119, entitled The Director of Lands, Petitioner, v. Belinda Tagailo-Bariuan, Claimant, v. Tiburcio Ballesteros, Claimant; that despite receipt of the adverse decision in the two cases on August 8, 1991, respondent did not inform herein complainants of the same nor file either a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal to prevent the decision from becoming final; that respondent did not file either a written offer of evidence despite the trial courts directive for him to do so; and that it took respondent four years from the time complainants father died before he filed a motion to substitute herein complainants in the trial court. The foregoing acts and omissions of respondent are alleged to be in violation of the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT. CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. Complainants pray that such disciplinary sanctions as may be appropriate be imposed against Atty. Valentin Boncavil. In his answer, respondent alleges that the day before the cadastral court rendered its decision, he met by chance herein complainant Julian Ballesteros, who, after inquiring as to the status of the cadastral cases and learning that the same had already been submitted for resolution, told him You are too busy to attend to our case, it would be better if somebody else would take over, to which, according to respondent, he replied, It is all right with me, it is your privilege; that as a self-respecting legal practitioner, he did not want to continue rendering unwanted legal services to a client who has lost faith in his counsel; that he thus considered himself discharged as counsel in the two cadastral cases and relieved of the obligation either to move for a reconsideration of the decision or to file a notice of appeal and to notify herein complainants of the decision against them; that, contrary to complainants assertion, he did make an offer of evidence, although he reserved the right to submit authenticated copies of the documentary evidence from the Bureau of Lands in Manila; that the delay in the substitution of Tiburcio Ballesteros with his heirs was because neither the heirs nor the administrator of the intestate estate of Tiburcio Ballesteros informed him of the latters death despite the heirs knowledge that he was the counsel in the two cadastral cases.

On June 8, 1994, complainants moved for a judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the facts are not in dispute and the respondents answer admits the material allegations of the complaint. On June 13, 1994, IBP Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose required respondent to comment on the foregoing motion within five (5) days from notice. On October 12, 1995, he set the case for hearing on November 17, 1995. On November 17, 1995, however, only complainants Tiburcio Ballesteros, Jr. and Fe Yabut and their counsel appeared. This fact, together with respondents failure to comment on complainants motion submitting the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings, prompted Commissioner Jose to grant complainants motion. On June 21, 1996, Commissioner Jose submitted his report recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. On May 17, 1997, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-97-16 approving Commissioner Joses report and recommendation. After due consideration of the records of this case, the Court finds the recommendation of the IBP to be well taken. The facts clearly show that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. By abandoning complainants cases, respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the same Code which requires that a lawyer not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. As stated in Santiago v. Fojas: Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. Nor can we sustain respondents claim that he did not file either a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal from the decision in the two cases because he was under the impression from the remark of Julian Ballesteros that complainants no longer wanted to retain his services. As a member of the bar, he ought to know that the only way to be relieved as counsel in a case is to have either the written conformity of his client or an order from the court relieving him as counsel. Thus, Rule 138, 26 of the Rules of Court provides: An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party. As a matter of fact, Julian Ballesteros, who allegedly made the remarks which became the basis for respondents inaction, denied ever having made those statements, much less having discharged respondent as counsel. Moreover, Julian Ballesteros is only one of the heirs of Tiburcio Ballesteros, and it has not been shown that he was speaking on behalf of the other heirs when he allegedly relieved respondent of his services. In any case, if respondent had really been discharged as counsel, although not in accordance with the Rules of Court, he should

have informed the trial court and asked that he be allowed to withdraw from the cases. Until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record, any judicial notice sent to him was binding upon his clients even though as between them the professional relationship may have been terminated. He cannot validly claim that, in any case, the decision has not yet become final for want of service on the Solicitor General, for the period within which complainants can file a motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal is counted from receipt of the decision by their counsel of record. Nor is this the first time that respondent is remiss in his professional obligation toward complainants. In his answer, he practically admits that he was late in moving for the substitution of Tiburcio Ballesteros by herein complainant heirs. Respondents excuse that he was not immediately informed by complainants of their fathers death is without merit. Four years after the death of complainants father is simply too long a period for him not to have known of his clients death, especially as it appears that he and complainants live in close proximity with each other. During those four years, surely occasions would have arisen where respondent had to confer with Tiburcio Ballesteros regarding the cases. Respondent also, in effect, admits that he failed to file a written offer of evidence as required by the court in its order, dated June 21, 1983. What he actually filed was only a provisional written offer of evidence because the documents offered were not certified true copies. What the Court makes of respondents garbled explanation for this lapse is that he could not bother to go to the Bureau of Lands in Manila to get certified true copies because a check with the Bureau of Lands in Pagadian City showed the same documentary evidence to be substantially the same true copies. If that were the case, respondent did not explain why he did not then go to the Pagadian City branch of the Bureau of Lands to get the certified true copies of his documentary evidence. The recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months for respondents gross negligence in the handling of the two cadastral cases is in accordance with our decisions. WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to suspend respondent Atty. Valentin O. Boncavil from the practice of law for six (6) months from notice with a warning that a repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be attached to Atty. Boncavils personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and to all the courts in the land. SO ORDERED.

You might also like