You are on page 1of 11

ROSARIO T.

MECARAL,
Complainant,

A.C. No. 8392 [ Formerly CBD


Case No. 08-2175]
Present:

- versus -

ATTY. DANILO S.
VELASQUEZ,
Respondent.

CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
June 29, 2010

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION

PER CURIAM:
Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez (respondent) before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) [1] with Gross
Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct which she detailed in her Position Paper[2] as follows:

After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and commonlaw wife. In October 2007, respondent brought her to the mountainous Upper San Agustin in
Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers
Association of the Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily, his
visits became scarce in November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval,

Biliran. Furious, respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on


followers tortured, brainwashed and injected her with drugs. When she
December 24, 2007, the members of the group tied her spread-eagled to a
only a T-shirt and diapers and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a
members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo.

his instruction, his


tried to escape on
bed. Made to wear
day by the women

Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having received information that she
was weak, pale and walking barefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of Caibiran,
sought the help of the Provincial Social Welfare Department which immediately dispatched two
women volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to release her, however, without
the instruction of respondent. It took PO3 Delan G. Lee (PO3 Lee) and PO1 Arnel S. Robedillo
(PO1 Robedillo) to rescue and reunite her with her mother.
Hence, the present disbarment complaint against respondent. Additionally, complainant
charges respondent with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on August
2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal.

In support of her charges, complainant submitted documents including the


following: Affidavit[3] of Delia dated February 5, 2008; Affidavit of PO3 Lee and PO1
Robedillo[4] dated February 14, 2008; photocopy of the Certificate of Marriage [5] between
respondent and Leny H. Azur; photocopy of the Marriage Contract [6] between respondent and
Shirley G. Yunzal; National Statistics Office Certification [7] dated April 23, 2008 showing the
marriage of Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal to respondent on April 27, 1990 in Quezon City and the
marriage of Leny H. Azur to respondent on August 2, 1996 in Mandaue City, Cebu; and
certified machine copy of the Resolution[8] of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Naval,
Biliran and the Information[9] lodged with the RTC-Branch 37-Caibiran, Naval, Biliran, for
Serious Illegal Detention against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo on complaint of herein
complainant.
Despite respondents receipt of the February 22, 2008 Order[10] of the Director for Bar
Discipline for him to submit his Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, and his expressed
intent to properly make [his] defense in a verified pleading,[11] he did not file any Answer.

On the scheduled Mandatory Conference set on September 2, 2008 of which the parties
were duly notified, only complainants counsel was present. Respondent and his counsel
failed to appear.
Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III of the CBD, in his Report and
Recommendation[12] dated September 29, 2008, found that:
[respondents] acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages with
Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance.
The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct [which] only a
beast may be able to do. Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which reads:
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
xxxx
In the long line of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently imposed severe penalty for
grossly immoral conduct of a lawyer like the case at bar. In the celebrated case of Joselano
Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Manuel Eala, the [Court] ordered the disbarment of the respondent for
maintaining extra-marital relations with a married woman, and having a child with her. In the
instant case, not only did the respondent commit bigamy for contracting marriages with Shirley
Yunzal in 1990 and Leny Azur in 1996, but the respondent also made his secretary (complainant)
his mistress and subsequently, tortured her to the point of death. All these circumstances showed
the moral fiber respondent is made of, which [leave] the undersigned with no choice but to
recommend the disbarment of Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez.[13] (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

The IBP Board of Governors of Pasig City, by Resolution [14] dated December 11, 2008,
ADOPTED the Investigating Commissioners findings and APPROVED the recommendation
for the disbarment of respondent.
As did the IBP Board of Governors, the Court finds the IBP Commissioners evaluation
and recommendation well taken.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege.[15] When a lawyers moral character is assailed, such that his
right to continue

practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely
and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is
morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.[16]
Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the
IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true. [17] Despite his letter
dated March 28, 2008 manifesting that he would come up with his defense in a verified
pleading, he never did.
Aside then from the IBPs finding that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he also violated the Lawyers Oath reading:
I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines,
do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I
will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to
the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God, (underscoring supplied),

and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the same Code reading:


Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

The April 30, 2008 Resolution[18] of the Provincial Prosecutor on complainants charge
against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo for Serious Illegal Detention bears special
noting, viz:
[T]he counter-affidavit of x x x Bernardita C. Tadeo (co-accused in the complaint) has the
effect of strengthening the allegations against Atty. Danilo Velasquez. Indeed, it is clear now that
there was really physical restraint employed by Atty. Velasquez upon the person of Rosario

Mecaral. Even as he claimed that on the day private complainant was fetched by the two women
and police officers, complainant was already freely roaming around the place and thus, could not
have been physically detained. However, it is not really necessary that Rosario be physically kept
within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. In fact, she was always accompanied
wherever she would wander, that it could be impossible for her to escape especially considering
the remoteness and the distance between Upper San Agustin, Caibiran, Biliran to Naval, Biliran
where she is a resident. The people from the Faith Healers Association had the express and
implied orders coming from respondent Atty. Danilo Velasquez to keep guarding Rosario
Mecaral and not to let her go freely. That can be gleaned from the affidavit of co-respondent
Bernardita Tadeo. The latter being reprimanded whenever Atty. Velasquez would learn that
complainant had untangled the cloth tied on her wrists and feet.[19] (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

That, as reflected in the immediately-quoted Resolution in the criminal complaint against


respondent, his therein co-respondent corroborated the testimonies of complainants witnesses,
and that the allegations against him remain unrebutted, sufficiently prove the charges against
him by clearly preponderant evidence, the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative
case against a lawyer.[20]

In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which constitute
gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer.[21]
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his
name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately
executory and ordered to be part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Let copies of the Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND


GAMING
CORPORATION,
represented by Atty. Carlos R.
Bautista,
Jr.,
Complainant,
- versus -

A.C. No. 5700


Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
Promulgated:

ATTY. DANTE A. CARANDANG,


Respondent.

January 30, 2006

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a verified complaint for disbarment filed by the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) against
Atty. Dante A. Carandang.
The complaint alleges that Atty. Carandang, respondent, is the president of Bingo Royale,
Incorporated (Bingo Royale), a private corporation organized under the laws of
the Philippines.
On February 2, 1999, PAGCOR and Bingo Royale executed a Grant of Authority to
Operate Bingo Games. Article V of this document mandates Bingo Royale to remit 20% of its
gross sales to PAGCOR. This 20% is divided into 15% to PAGCOR and 5% franchise tax to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
In the course of its operations, Bingo Royale incurred arrears amounting
to P6,064,833.14 as of November 15, 2001. Instead of demanding the payment therefor,
PAGCOR allowed Bingo Royale and respondent Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in
monthly installment of P300,000.00 from July 2001 to June 2003.
Bingo Royale then issued to PAGCOR twenty four (24) Bank of Commerce checks in the
sum of P7,200,000.00 signed by respondent.

However, when the checks were deposited after the end of each month at the Land Bank,
U.N. Avenue Branch, Manila, they were all dishonored by reason of BingoRoyales Closed
Account.
Despite PAGCORs demand letters dated November 12 and December 12, 2001,
and February 12, 2002, respondent failed to pay the amounts of the checks. Thus, PAGCOR
filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila criminal complaints for violations of
Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 against respondent.
PAGCOR contends that in issuing those bouncing checks, respondent is liable for serious
misconduct, violation of the Attorneys Oath and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and prays that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
In his Opposition to the complaint, respondent averred that he is not liable for issuing
bouncing checks because they were drawn by Bingo Royale. His act of doing so is not related
to the office of a lawyer.
Respondent explained that since the start of its operations, Bingo Royale has been
experiencing financial difficulties due to meager sales. Hence, it incurred arrearages in
paying PAGCORs shares and failed to pay the amounts of the checks.
On November 20, 2001, PAGCOR closed the operations of Bingo Royale. This
prompted the latter to file with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Makati City, acomplaint for
damages against PAGCOR, docketed as Civil Case No. 01-1671.
Subsequently, Bingo Royale became bankrupt. Respondent now maintains that the
dishonor of the checks was caused by circumstances beyond his control and pleads that
our power to disbar him must be exercised with great caution.
On February 24, 2003, we resolved to refer this case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[1]
In his Report and Recommendation, Atty. Doroteo B. Aguila, the Investigating IBP
Commissioner, made the following findings and observations:
Whether to issue or not checks in favor of a payee is a voluntary act. It is
clearly a choice for an individual (especially one learned in the law), whether in a
personal capacity or officer of a corporation, to do so after assessing and weighing the
consequences and risks for doing so. As President of BRI, he cannot be said to be
unaware of the probability that BRI, the company he runs, could not raise funds, totally

or partially, to cover the checks as they fell due. The desire to continue the operations
of his company does not excuse respondents act of violating the law by issuing
worthless checks. Moreover, inability to pay is not a ground, under the Civil Code,
to suspend nor extinguish an obligation. Specifically, respondent contends that
because of business reverses or inability to generate funds, BRI should be excused
from making good the payment of the checks. If this theory is sustained, debtors will
merely state that they no longer have the capacity to pay and, consequently, not
obliged to pay on time, nor fully or partially, their debt to creditors. Surely,
undersigned cannot agree with this contention.
As correctly pointed out by complainant, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is an offense
that involves public interest. In the leading case of People v. Taada, the Honorable
Supreme Court explained the nature of the offense, thus
xxx
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon
its presentation for payment xxx. The thrust of the law is to prohibit
under pain of penal sanctions the making of worthless checks and
putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on
thepublic interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes
the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public
order.
xxx
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the
private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and
touches the interest of the community at large. The mischief it creates is
not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public.
The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in
circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the
channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public
interest. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to obey the laws of


the land and promote respect for law and the legal processes. It also prohibits a
lawyer from engaging in unlawful conduct (Canon 1 & Rule 1.01). By issuing the
bouncing checks in blatant violation of B.P. Blg. 22, respondent clearly was
irresponsible and displayed lack of concern for the rights of others nor for the canons
of professional responsibility (Castillo v. Taguines, 254 SCRA 554). Atty. Carandang
deserves to be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. Consistent

with the ruling in this Castillo case, suspension for one year is the deserved minimum
penalty for the outrageous conduct of a lawyer who has no concern for the property
rights of others nor for the canons of professional responsibility. Moreover,
conviction for the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is not even essential for
disbarment (De Jesus v. Collado, 216 SCRA 619).

Commissioner Aguila then recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for one (1) year.
On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2003177 adopting and approving Commissioner Aguilas Report and Recommendation with
modification in the sense that the recommended penalty is reduced to suspension of six (6)
months, thus:
RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of
the above-entitled case, herein made part of the Resolution/Decision as Annex A
and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, with modification, and considering that the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect of law and the legal processes, and also prohibits a lawyer from
engaging in unlawful conduct, Atty. Dante A. Carandang is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six (6) months. [2]

Section 1, B. P. Blg. 22 provides:


Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or
persons who actually signed the check on behalf of such drawer shall be liable
under this Act. (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, even if the check was drawn by Bingo Royale, still respondent is liable.
In People v. Tuanda,[3] we explained the nature of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as follows:
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment xxx. The thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the
making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The

law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public
order.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests
of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the
community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or
holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the
channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the
welfare of society and the public interest.

As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B. P. Blg. 22. By issuing
checks in violation of the provisions of this law, respondent is guilty of serious
misconduct. In Camus v. Civil Service Board of Appeals,[4] we defined misconduct as follows:
Misconduct has been defined as wrong or improper conduct; and gross has
been held to mean flagrant; shameful (Webster). This Court once held that the
word misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.

In Lizaso v. Amante,[5] we held that a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice
in connection with his profession, but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional
capacity, thus:
The nature of the office, the trust relation which exists between attorney and
client, as well as between court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescribing the
qualifications of attorney, uniformly require that an attorney shall be a person of good
moral character. xxx So it is held that an attorney will be removed not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not
connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office
and unworthy of the principles which his license and the law confer upon
him. (Underscoring supplied)

Respondent likewise violated the Attorneys Oath that he will, among others, obey the
laws; and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the following provisions:
Cannon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.

Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Dante A. Carandang is declared GUILTY of serious misconduct


and violations of the Attorneys Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. As
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective from notice.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the land for their information and guidance. The Office
of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to spread a copy of this Decision on the personal record of
Atty. Carandang.
SO ORDERED.

You might also like