Monsod v Cayetano

Legal Ethics Practice of Law

In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections.
His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods appointment
was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to
meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC
should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:

1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

2. Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held
various positions in various foreign corporations.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations
until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes
practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in
most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation
work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what is
loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working
day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving
different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig
usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most
of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types a
litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will
require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA AC NO. 99-634. JUNE 10,
2002

Facts:
Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of money
against a creditor. Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which were not
successful and so the formerintimated that a case should already be filed. As a result,
petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the filing of the case.

A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any feedback as to the
status of his case. Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyers office but to no avail.
The lawyer, to prove that the case has already been filed even invited petitioner to come
with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for
hours in the prosecutors office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court to
inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk
of Court was absent that day.

Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the office of the clerk of
court to see for himself the status of his case. Petitioner found out that no such case has
been filed.

Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the excuse that the
delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only when shown the certification did
he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the
filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease petitioners feelings, he offered to reimburse
him by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of
P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively.

Issue:

Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP as follows: It is evident that the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the
Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint. With complainants
deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of
respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time frame
contemplated by his client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his
misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse
of funds of the client, which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice,
constitutes highly dishonestconduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law
profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money
deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his
misappropriation of said funds.
Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993

Facts:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor
as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or
entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other
than those allowed by law. The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as
follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THEPlease call: 521-0767,
LEGAL5217232, 5222041
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota
Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251
522-2041; 521-0767

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are

champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence
of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the
legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs
sought in his petition as herein before quoted.

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said
advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in
the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern
computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the
services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be
allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar
of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.

Issue:
Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can
properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute
practice of law. The definition of practice of law is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs.
Monsod, as defined:
Black defines "practice of law" as:
"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles
and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing
in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation
of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing,
the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients.
It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the
law."

The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither
be seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own
description of the services it has been offering. While some of the services being offered by
respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as the
installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices,
or the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an
exception to the general rule. What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives
out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-
advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing information, for
example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of
this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a
copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys
and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the
law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for
by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for which services it will
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that
respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight
of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances but extends to legal research,
giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.
 That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not
controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the
nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory
prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now
assailed in this proceeding. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession,
advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods.
The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests
on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons of the
profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of
character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community
has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs
no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference
between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.

Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999

Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar
vs.
Vicente D. Ching, petitioner

Facts:
Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese father, was
born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under the 1935 Constitution. He has resided in
the Philippines

He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998, filed an application to
take the 1998 Bar Examination.
The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed to take the bar if he submit to the Court the
following documents as proof of his Philippine Citizenship:
1. Certification issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching is a certified
accountant;
2. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a
registered voter of his place; and
3. Certification showing that Ching was elected as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Tubao, La Union
On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath taking ceremony was
scheduled on May 5, 1999.
Because of his questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was not allowed to take oath.
He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship.
The Office of the Solicitor General was required to file a comment on Ching's petition for
admission to the Philippine Bar.
In his report:
1. Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and continue to be so, unless
upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship, under the compliance
with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265 "an act providing for the manner in which
the option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be declared by a person whose mother is a
Filipino citizen"
2. He pointed out the Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship, and if ever he
does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by the present
jurisprudence.

Issue:
Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a reasonable time".

Rulings:
1. No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to elect Philippine citizenship
within a reasonable time. The reasonable time means that the election should be
made within 3 years from "upon reaching the age of majority", which is 21 years old.
Instead, he elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority
which the court considered not within the reasonable time. Ching offered no reason
why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship, as procedure in electing
Philippine citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required is
an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and file the same with the nearest civil
registry.

Fernandez v Grecia
A.C. No. 3694 June 17, 1993
ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ISABELO ONGTENGCO, ACHILLES BARTOLOME, AND ST.
LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, complainants,
vs.
ATTORNEY BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, respondent.

In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Lukes Hospital. Among the doctors who treated her
was Dr. Alberto Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home but then the
next day she died together with her unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband, then filed a
damage suit against the hospital and he impleaded the attending doctors which included
Fernandez. Aves hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to represent him.
Grecia requested St. Luke to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves.
St. Luke complied and the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the
morning of July 16, 1991, Grecia went to the office of the clerk of court to borrow the said
medical records. While Grecia was examining the said medical records, he tore in front of
the Clerk and one office staff two pages from the medical records and then handed it back
to the Clerk. The Clerk was stunned as she watched Grecia walk away. She then reported
the incident to the judge. The judge immediately took action and the torn pages were
eventually recovered as it turned out that Grecia handed the torn pages to someone else.
Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has been
disbarred before. However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court hence
he was reinstated to the profession.
ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.
HELD: Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he should
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is like the court itself, an instrument
or agency to advance the ends of justice. Considering that this is his second offense, an
incorrigible practitioner of dirty tricks, like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of
an instrument to advance the ends of justice. By descending to the level of a common
thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has
demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of
lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.

Adm. Case No. 481 February 28, 1969

IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST ARTURO P. LOPEZ.

VIRGINIA C. ALMIREZ assisted by her father, AGAPITO ALMIREZ complainants,

vs.
ARTURO P. LOPEZ, respondent.

Atty. Arturo Lopez became a lawyer in 1957. In 1958, he courted Virginia Almirez; they
became sweethearts. In 1960, Lopez manifested his intention to marry Almirez. Almirez
believed in the promise and so they had multiple carnal knowledge in the following months.
Eventually, Almirez got pregnant. Lopez then urged to her take some pills which he said
would hasten her menstrual flow. When this didnt work, Lopez advised her to see an
abortion doctor but no abortion was done because Almirez was against it. Thereafter, Lopez
refused to marry Almirez even though they already secured marriage license.
Almirez then filed a disbarment case against Lopez. Lopez in his defense denied that the
baby was his; that he did not promise to marry Almirez.
While the case was pending in the Office of the Solicitor General, Almirez filed an affidavit
of desistance. But later on, she withdraw said affidavit. She also confided that the reason
why she made the affidavit withdrawing the case was that Lopez promised to marry her
finally. BUT then Lopez did not and the latter actually married another woman instead
hence, Almirez revived the case. Further, Almirez also testified that the affidavit withdrawing
the disbarment case was procured by Lopez by letting her sign a blank sheet.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Lopez should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. Lopez is guilty of gross immoral conduct. Lopez denied that he promised to
marry Almirez but such denial is belied by the fact that they secured a marriage license.
Therefore, it is evident that he breached that promise when he did not marry her. His urging
Almirez to have an abortion is highly reprehensible. His procurement of the affidavit by
letting Almirez sign a blank sheet also bolsters his being unfit of being a member of the bar.
Hence, the Supreme Court disbarred him from the practice of law.

[A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999]

MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS, respondent.
DECISION
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),[1] 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.[2]

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.[3] 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.[4]

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[5] 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. [6] The nature of
the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9]
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.[10] 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. [11]
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.[12] 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.