SEBASTISAN VS.

CALIS
A.C. NO. 5118/314SCRA1;SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
J. _____
FACTS:

Sometime in November 1992, one Marilou Sebastian, herein complainant, was

referred to Atty. Dorotheo Calis, herein respondent, for the latter to process all the
documents needed for the former to travel to the United States of America with the
consideration of P150,000.00. With the respondent’s promise to return the complainant’s
money if there would be trouble with the documents for her travel. In 4 separate payments,
complainant paid the entire consideration receiving, however, only 3 receipts for the
payments. Respondent, Calis, provided the complainant with spurious documents which
resulted for complainant to be detained in Changi Prisons upon arrival in Singapore and
thereafter, the complainant was deported back to the Philippines.

Upon arrival in the Philippines, the respondent promised to secure new travel
documents for the complainant. However, the complainant opted to demand for the return
of her money. Calis made partial payments of 15,000, 6000, and 5000 to the complainant
but was unreachable when the complainant demanded for the rest of the payment.

Calis also failed to attend the hearings with the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) despite being issued summons and being
required to answer or comment on the complaint. Therewith, the IBP recommended the
disbarment of herein respondent.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Atty. Dorotheo Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which thereby constitutes his disbarment.

RULING:

Yes, Atty. Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege carrying with
it the condition of continuous good moral character. The gross misconduct of a lawyer
subjects him unfit to practice law..Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

In the case at bar, Calis guaranteed to secure all the necessary documents for
Sebastian’s travel to the United States with the promise to return the money if anything
goes wrong with her travel. Calis’s acts of giving the complainant spurious documents
constitutes deception and unlawful conduct on his part. Adding to it is respondent’s
refusal to honor the summons of the IBP which reflects his unprofessional conduct. The
court views Calis’s conduct and continuance in service as a threat to the administration of
justice. Therefore, Calis is deemed disbarred and is ordered to immediately return the rest
of the complainant’s money.