VIDAYLIN YAMON-LEACH, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, RESPONDENT.

Yamon-Leach versus Astorga

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Vidaylin Yamon-Leach against Attorney Arturo B. Astorga, a prominent legal practitioner and incumbent provincial board member of Leyte, on grounds of deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, and gross violation of his oath of office and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant is a distant relative of the respondent and had engaged him as her family lawyer. The case matters for two reasons: it shows how the Court treats a lawyer who swindles a trusting client, and it shows that a lawyer's repeated refusal to obey the lawful orders of the Supreme Court is, by itself, a ground for disbarment.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her disbarment complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The Court required the respondent to file his comment, but he never did. The complainant then moved to consider his comment waived and to submit the case for resolution. The Court issued a resolution requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplined or held in contempt, and still he did not comply. The Court then imposed a fine of 1,000 pesos and reiterated its directive. The respondent paid the fine but again asked for an extension and again failed to file his comment. The Court imposed an increased fine of 2,000 pesos and once more ordered him to file his comment, and he still did not comply. As of August 2019, no comment had ever been received. The Court therefore deemed the respondent's right to file a comment waived and resolved the case on the basis of the evidence presented by the complainant.

Facts

In September 2001, the respondent urged the complainant to buy a beach-front property in Baybay, Leyte for 1.4 million pesos, telling her it could be paid in installments. Before she left for Las Vegas, Nevada, he collected 110,000 pesos from her, supposedly to give to the seller so the property would not be offered to others. She did not ask for a receipt because she trusted him as a distant relative and the family lawyer. While abroad, she sent him 1,300,215 pesos to cover the balance and costs.

When she returned to the Philippines in December 2001, the respondent told her he had already paid the seller and was working on the transfer of title. He then handed her an undated deed of absolute sale of portions of registered land and asked her to sign below the word conforme, which she did. She noticed strange features: the sellers named in the deed were not the owner she had been told about, the boundaries were not described, and the tax certificate numbers were missing. The respondent assured her that everything was alright and that he would make the corrections later. He then asked for more money for his attorney's fees, for processing, and for taxes, fees, and charges. Pursuant to his statement of account, she sent him 204,000 pesos in January 2002 and another 205,436 pesos shortly after.

Her brother verified the transaction with the supposed owner, who said she had not received a single centavo from the respondent. It turned out that the property in the deed was neither hers nor a beach-front property, and that the signatures of the sellers were forgeries. One of them had died eight years earlier, in June 1994, and the other died the following year. When confronted, the respondent apologized and admitted he had used the money. He made several promises to pay her back, and in October 2002 he acknowledged that the total she had given him was 1,819,651 pesos. He offered an agreement and a deed of real estate mortgage over his alleged residential lots, but she refused to sign. He promised an initial payment of one million pesos, then asked for an extension, and finally wrote her a letter saying he could not fulfill his promise.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of willful disobedience and gross misconduct for repeatedly failing to comply with the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of deceit, dishonesty, and misappropriation of the money entrusted to him by the complainant, in violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not the penalty of disbarment is the proper sanction under the circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

Article 19 of the Civil Code provides:

Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

The respondent violated this provision when he dealt with the complainant dishonestly and in bad faith.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

The respondent failed to obey the laws and to promote respect for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The respondent's trickery and misrepresentation fall squarely within this prohibition.

Canon 12 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

The respondent's repeated failure to file his comment delayed the resolution of the case and violated this duty.

Rule 12.03 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

The respondent obtained an extension and let the period lapse without filing anything.

Rule 12.04 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

The respondent's inaction unduly delayed the administrative case against him.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer's oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.

This provision supplies the grounds for the penalty imposed on the respondent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's failure to comply with its several directives to file his comment constitutes willful disobedience and gross misconduct. As an officer of the court, he is expected to know that a resolution of the Court is not a mere request but an order to be complied with promptly and completely. His repeated indifference violated Canon 12 and Rules 12.03 and 12.04 of the Code, and is by itself a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

On the second issue, the Court found that the respondent sought out the complainant, volunteered to act as her representative, received and even solicited substantial amounts totaling 1,819,651 pesos, misrepresented that the money would cover the purchase price, taxes, processing fees, and his professional fee, misappropriated the money, and deceived her by making it appear that he had bought the property when he had not. He even made it appear that the dead sellers acknowledged the deed before him as a notary public. The Court called this plain and simple trickery. It held that deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude, and that good moral character is not only a condition for admission to the Bar but a continuing requirement for membership in it.

On the third issue, the Court held that disbarment was proper. The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public, to foster public confidence in the Bar, to preserve the integrity of the profession, and to deter other lawyers. The Court noted that the respondent had been penalized in two previous administrative cases, and that nothing in his records showed he had served a prior two-year suspension. It also refused to credit his claim of illness, given his propensity for manipulating people and misrepresenting facts.

Doctrine

A lawyer's failure to comply with the lawful orders of the Supreme Court constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination which, alone, can merit disbarment. The practice of law is a privilege, and good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission but a continuing imposition for continued membership in the Bar. Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes any act contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. A lawyer who misappropriates a client's money and deceives the client through false representations violates Article 19 of the Civil Code, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood, and may be disbarred under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and ordered his disbarment, with his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Remember This

Remember the single line: a lawyer's willful disobedience of the Court's lawful orders is, by itself, a ground for disbarment. Examiners like to use this case on the continuing requirement of good moral character and on the disbarment of a lawyer who swindles a trusting client.