. Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz vs. Atty.

Chichina Faye Lim, August 16, 2016

Facts:

The parties to this case were childhood friends. This relationship enabled respondent to borrow substantial
amounts of money from complainant and the latter's brother.

In 2008, respondent asked if she could use the credit card of complainant to purchase something. As the
latter was then unable to get out of the house because of a delicate pregnancy, she had to ask respondent
to withdraw PI0,000 from her ATM card to pay for her credit card bill. Complainant tendered both her ATM
card, which had an available balance of P78.000, and her credit'card. She later found out that respondent
had depleted all the funds in the ATM card and used up a considerable amount from the cash advance limit
of the credit card.Despite the repeated demands of complainant and the consequent execution of a
promissory note by respondent, the latter still failed to pay the principal amount of P1 42,000 and the
interests thereon that had accrued.

Further, the respondent incurred loans to both petitioner and her brother. The loans were covered by
postdated checks, which were later dishonored and returned by the bank for the reason that the account
had been closed. Complainant and her brother repeatedly called and sent text messages to petitioner to
inform her that her checks had been dishonored and to demand that she make good on her checks. On 7
October 2010, complainant personally handed a demand letter to respondent.As the latter still failed to
honor her promises to pay, complainant instituted a criminal complaint.

Despite due notice, respondent did not submit an Answer, appear at the mandatory conference, or submit a
position paper.

Issue: Whether or not respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

Yes, respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent cannot evade disciplinary sanctions by implying that there was no attorney-client relationship
between her and complainant. In Nulada v. Paulma,this Court reiterated that by taking the Lawyer's Oath,
lawyers become guardians of the law and indispensable instruments for the orderly administration of justice.
As such, they can be disciplined for any misconduct, be it in their professional or in their private capacity,
and thereby be rendered unfit to continue to be officers of the court.
chanrob

In this case, complainant and her brother categorically stated that they had agreed to lend substantial
amounts of money to respondent, because "she's a lawyer."Indeed, lawyers are held by the community in
very high esteem; yet respondent eroded this goodwill when she repeatedly broke her promises to pay and
make good on her checks.
Case Digest: Carmelita I. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Alfredo Castillo

03 August 2005 Per Curiam

FACTS:

Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with Carmelita
Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and
before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The
latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her
support which did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross
Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration.

The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In his
defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his
good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his amicability as a husband
and father despite the affair. More than a year since the original decision rendered by the Court,
Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of post-
dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of
Php2,000.00 each.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and should be punished
with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension.

HELD:

YES. Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of
the same Code.

The conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to the community is a just and
reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of
two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child
should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.