OCA CIRCULAR NO. 12-2004, January 30, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Resolution of Supreme Court En Banc dated March 11,2003
, to wit:

“Complainant is a Taiwanese national. He came to the
Philippines to invest in a beach resort for leisure and recreation. He
engaged the services of respondent as legal consultant and retained
counsel. Complainant now seeks his disbarment for gross misconduct and
immorality. ^[1]

Complainant Rau Sheng Mao narrates that sometime in 1993 he
hired respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco as his legal counsel
consultant and counsel for his company, the Foreign Investors
Consultancy and Management Inc. (FICMI). As he was new in the country,
he trusted the business judgment of respondent who crowed about his
being president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine, Virac,
Catanduanes Chapter.

A year later, complainant, in his capacity as President of
FJGMI, entered into’ a Management Agreement with Haru Gen Beach Resort
and Hotel Corporation (‘Tiara Gen”) for the operation and management of
Twin Rock Beach Resort in Virac, Catanduanes. Haru Gen was
represented in this transaction by respondent as director and
stockholder. After concluding the management agreement, respondent sold
complainant his ten thousand shares of stock with Haru Gen for
Pl,000,000.00 Complainant alleges that although he had fully paid for
the shares, as evidenced by receipts acknowledged by respondent, the
latter failed and refused to deliver the certificates for the purchased
shares.

Complainant also alleges that respondent persuaded him to buy
three (3) parcels of land belonging to the latter for P3 3660 3800.00.
Although he paid respondent P3,300,000.00, the latter reneged on his
obligation to deliver the certificates of title covering the purchased
properties.

To further complicate his woes, in the course of FICMI’s
management of Twin Rock Beach Resort, several complaints were filed
against him by former employees of the beach resort. Respondent acted as
his counsel and in the course of their professional relationship
respondent asked for several sums of money purportedly to be given to
the judges hearing his cases. In one of his letters to complainant,
respondent wrote – “the Judge (whom he did not identify) was not
contented of the P6,000.00 claiming that he dismissed two (2) cases. I
suggest that you give additional P5 3G00.00 x x x” 2 In another letter
he reported to complainant that “Judge Barsaga has already rendered the
decision in my case regarding the three (3) parcels of land x x x x He
is asking -‘Christmas gift’ x x x x”^[3]

Complainant also claims that respondent represented him in the
special proceedings involving the settlement of the estate of the
deceased Mihant Matsuzawa where he (complainant) was appointed
administrator. Thereafter however their relationship turned sour and
respondent did not only sever their professional relationship but went
further and moved for the revocation of complainant’s appointment as
administrator.

Lastly, complainant charges respondent with immorality for
flaunting his illicit relationship with a certain Ludy Matienzo despite
his being legally married to one Rosita Velasco. Complainant declares
that the affaire d’ amour, which was common knowledge in the
place, produced three (3) children, namely, Jesebeth, Jenny and Jenneth,
all of whom were acknowledged by respondent as his own.

Respondent denies the allegations and insists that he could not
have deceived complainant in their business dealings inasmuch as the
latter was represented in all their transactions by Atty. Ricardo B.
Purog, Jr. Insofar as the charge of non­ delivery of the purchased
shares of stock is concerned, he asserts that complainant very well knew
that he had not paid for his shares hence his failure to immediately
deliver the certificates corresponding to the shares sold. As for the
non­delivery of the certificates of title covering the three (3) parcels
of land, respondent avers that he had told complainant that the
purchased properties were still under litigation.

Without disclaiming authorship of any of the letters presented
by complainant where respondent bragged about his influence over judges,
respondent avers that in all his thirty- five-(35) years of practice he
had never asked favors from judges nor privately sought an audience
with them. He likewise denies having had any relationship with Ludy
Matienzo and in support thereof he presented the affidavit of Ludy
Matienzo refuting the ..imputed relationship between them as well as the
affidavit of his wife Rosita attesting to his fidelity.^[4]

In retort to respondent’s denial of fathering any of Ludy
Matienzo’s daughters, complainant presented in evidence the baptismal
certificate of Jenny M. Velasco which listed respondent Angeles Velasco
as her father and Ludy Matienzo as her mother^.[5]
He likewise presented affidavits of several persons residing within
the municipality, including a lawyer, a court employee and a neighbor of
the Matienzos, confirming respondent’s intimate relationship with Ludy
Matienzo.^[6]

Consistent with Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the matter was,
referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. After
conducting a thorough investigation, the Commission recommended that
respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco be “suspended for.a period of at
least two (2) years.;” .Mainly, the recommendation was premised on the
ground’tl’mt-notwithstanding complainant’s failure to support his
allegation that respondent duped him in their business transactions, the
evidence on record supports the charge of immorality against
respondent. Also, respondent by writing letters to complainant boasting
about being able to influence judges undermined the integrity of the
judiciary.

Upon a review of the records, we are convinced that respondent’s
conduct leaves much to be desired. We however agree with the findings
of the Investigating Commissioner that complainant was as not as
gullible in his business dealings with respondent as he presented
himself to be. The Commission found it unlikely for complainant to have
been deceived by respondent inasmuch as the former was represented by
his own counsel Atfy. Purog, Jr. in all his business
transactions with the latter. Thus, complainant could not have been
misled by respondent with respect to the import of their contracts
regarding the sale of the shares of stock with Haru Gen as well as the
sale of the three (3) parcels of land. Nonetheless, respondent must
still be chastised for his grossly immoral conduct.

Respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco has been living an
adulterous life with Ludy Matienzo with whom he has three (3) children.
The children bear respondent’s surname, their school re-cords even refer
to their mother Ludy Matienzo as “Ludy M. Velasco.” By flaunting
his.relationship with a woman not his wife respondent has transgressed
the high moral standard required for membership in the bar.

Under- Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 7, a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency
that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a
lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that “conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of respectable members of the community.”^[7] Thus, in
several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for
keeping a. mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of
the community.^[8]

As keepers of the public faith, lawyers are burdened with the
highest degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their
personal affairs with the greatest caution. They are expected at all
times to maintain due regard for public decency in (he community where
they live. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no
less than the highest degree of morality. Indeed, those who have taken
the oath to assist in the dispensation of justice should be more
possessed of the consciousness and the will to overcome the weakness of
the fiesh.

What is more, respondent has violated another basic tenet of
legal ethics — he has given complainant the impression that lie was in a
position to influence the court.^[9]
Thus, in a seiies of letters presented by complainant, which
respondent meekly claimed were private communications between them,
respondent trumpeted his connection with judges and their supposed
demand for money. A lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which
give the appearance of influencing the court. Respondent’s actions could
not but place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril,
hence the need for strict disciplinary action.

On these considerations, we feel strongly the impulse to purge
respondent from the ranks of our noble profession. However, considering
that he. is in the declining years of his Jife^[10]
and has rendered years of service to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, as President of the Virac, Catanduanes Chapter, we, feel
that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty for him. Hence 9. a
suspension of two (2) years, as recommended by the Commission on Bar
Discipline, would suffice as a punitive but compassionate disciplinary
measure.

Indeed, no profession offers greater opportunity for public
service than that of a lawyer. For the privilege conferred upon him, a
lawyer is tasked with the equally great responsibility of upholding the
ethics and ideals established by the learned lawyers of ancient times.
Into his hands are entrusted the life, liberty and property of a
trusting man. The only guarantee that this trust will be carried with
honor is the character of a lawyer. Such character, on the other hand,
can only; be observed -through one’s reputation and conduct Thus, when a
lawyer,so deports himself that confidence can no longer .be rested in
him without fear, his usefulness to the court and to the-society ceases.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Angeles A. Velasco is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) years from notice, with warning
that a repetition of the acts charges will be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is further ordered to notify this Court of his receipt of
this Decision.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts in the land,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant,
and let it be spread in respondent’s personal record.

SO ORDERED”

Copy of this Decision was received by Atty. Velasco on October 28, 2003.

__30__ January 2004.

^[2] Id., p. 10.

 ^[3] Id., p. II.

 ^[4] Id.,pp. 51-65.

 ^[5] Id, p. 292.

 ^[6] Id, pp. 293-297.

 ^[7] Words and Phrases, Vol. 20, p. 85, citing In Re Hicks, 20 P2d, 896, 897.

 ^[8] Toledo v. Toledo,.
117 Phil 768 (1963); Arciga v. Maniwang, Adia Case No. 1608, 14 August
1981, 106 SCRA 591; Qbusan.v. Gbusnn, Add Case No. 1392, 2 April 1984,
128 SCRA 4S5; Mendoza v. Mala, Adm. Case No. 1129, 27 July 1992, 211
SCRA S39; Nsrag v. Nzrag, Adm. Case No. 3405, 29 June 1998,291 SCRA 451.

 ^[9] Canon 13. A
lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of
influencing the court.

 ^[10] Respondent was sixty (69) years of age when he filed his Comment on 28 August 1998; Rollo, p. 51.