arroyo-posidio vs vitan
Post on 01-Jun-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Arroyo-Posidio vs Vitan
1/2
CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, Responent.
A.C. No. !"#$ Ap% il &, &""' D E C I S I O N YNARES-SANTIA(O, J.:
In a verified complaint1dated June 14, 2002, complainant Celia Arroyo-Posidio prayed for
the disbarment of respondent Atty Jeremias ! "itan on account of deceit, fraud,
dishonesty and commission of acts in violation of the la#yer$s oath
Complainant alle%ed that she en%a%ed the services of respondent in &pecial Proceedin%
'o C-(2(, entitled )Testate Estate of deceased Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo,) filed
before the !e%ional *rial Court of Caloocan City Complainant paid respondent le%al feesin the amount of P20,00000 +o#ever, on June , 10, respondent #ithdre# his
appearance as counsel in the said case, thus complainant en%a%ed the services of
another la#yer
&ometime in Au%ust 1, respondent contacted complainant and sho#ed her
documents consistin% of ta. declarations of properties purportedly formin% part of the
estate of 'icolasa & de /uman-Arroyo, but #ere not included in the Inventory of
Properties for distribution in &pecial Proceedin% 'o C-(2( +e convinced complainant to
file another case to recover her share in the alle%ed undeclared properties and
demanded P100,00000 as le%al fees therefor After several months, ho#ever, respondent
failed to institute any action Complainant decided to fore%o the filin% of the case and
ased for the return of the P100,00000, but respondent refused despite repeated
demands
Conseuently, complainant filed an action for sum of money and dama%es a%ainst
respondent before 3ranch 1, 5etropolitan *rial Court, "alenuela City #hich #as
doceted as Civil Case 'o 6170 8n 5arch 71, 1, the trial court rendered a decision,
the dispositive portion of #hich states9
:+;!;; per annum from
&eptember 6, 1 until the same is fully paid and?or satisfied@
2 *o pay plaintiff the amount of P,00000 as and for attorney$s fees@ and
7 *o pay the cost of suit2
!espondent appealed to the !e%ional *rial Court #hich affirmed 7the 5etropolitan *rial
Court decision in toto.*hus, complainant filed a 5otion for Issuance of a :rit of ;.ecution
#hich #as %ranted on 5arch 1, 20014
*o satisfy the =ud%ment a%ainst him, respondent issued Prudential 3an chec number
077642(dated 5ay 71, 2001 in the amount of P120,00000 in favor of complainant
+o#ever, upon presentment for payment, the chec #as dishonored for the reason9
ACC8'* CB8&; espite a #ritten notice of dishonor and demand dated &eptember
7, 2001, respondent refused to honor his obli%ation +ence, this administrative complaint
char%in% respondent #ith deceit, fraud, dishonesty and commission of acts in violation of
the la#yer$s oath
!espondent denied complainant$s alle%ations +e admitted havin% received the amount
of P100,00000 but claimed that the same #as partial payment for his services in &pecial
Proceedin% Case 'o C-(2(
-
8/9/2019 Arroyo-Posidio vs Vitan
2/2
!espondent must lie#ise be reminded that a la#yer should, at all times, comply #ith
#hat the court la#fully reuires20It bears stressin% that the =ud%ment a%ainst him in Civil
Case 'o 6170 has lon% become final and e.ecutory +o#ever, up to this date, he has
failed to comply #ith the order to pay complainant the amount ofP100,00000 as #ell as
interest and attorney$s fees +is refusal to comply #ith the said order constitutes a #illful
disobedience to the court$s la#ful orders
Ba#yers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are
e.pected to stand foremost in complyin% #ith court directives bein% themselves officers of
the court21And #hile respondent issued a chec in the amount of P120,00000 in favor of
complainant, purportedly to satisfy the =ud%ment a%ainst him, the chec #as later
dishonored for havin% been dra#n a%ainst a closed account !espondent never denied
the issuance of the chec or refuted complainant$s alle%ations re%ardin% the same
'either did he uestion the veracity of complainant$s evidence #hich consisted of the
chec itself
'eedless to say, the act of issuin% a bouncin% chec further compounded respondent$s
infractions *ime and a%ain, #e have held that the act of a la#yer in issuin% a chec
#ithout sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes #illful dishonesty and immoral
conduct as to undermine the public confidence in la# and la#yers22&uch conduct
indicates the respondent$s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, sho#s
such lac of personal honesty and %ood moral character as to render him un#orthy of
public confidence and constitutes a %round for disciplinary action27
It is clear from the fore%oin% that respondent fell short of the e.actin% moral and ethical
standards imposed on members of the le%al profession !espondent$s refusal to return
complainant$s money upon demand, his failure to comply #ith the la#ful orders of the trial
court, as #ell as the issuance of a bouncin% chec, reveal his failure to live up to hisduties as a la#yer in consonance #ith the strictures of his oath and the Code of
Professional !esponsibility
It cannot be overemphasied that membership in the le%al profession is a privile%e
:henever it is made to appear that an attorney is no lon%er #orthy of the trust and
confidence of the public, it becomes not only the ri%ht but also the duty of this Court,
#hich made him one of its officers and %ave him the privile%e of ministerin% #ithin its 3ar,
to #ithdra# the privile%e24
*he Court believes that a penalty of suspension is called for under the circumstances
In Es!iritu v. "a#redo $%,2(a la#yer #as suspended for one year for failure to account for
and return the amount of P(1,1100 to his client In Reyes v. Ma&laya,2a la#yer #as
suspended for one year for failure to return to his client the amount ofP1,(0000 despite
numerous demands Bie#ise, in "astillo v. Ta&uines,26a la#yer #as suspended for one
year for failure to return to his client the amount of P(0000 and for issuin% a bouncin%
chec
:+;!;
top related