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

:+;!;