You are on page 1of 4

Spouses Rogelio Amatorio and Aida Amatorio vs.

Atty Francisco Dy Yap


and Atty. Whelma F. Siton-Yap
A.C. No. 5914 March 11, 2015

Facts: The complainants are clients of Atty. Justo Paras in two collection cases
namely Civil Case No. 2000-319 and 2000- 321, which were filed against them
by the respondents. Because of Atty. Paras’ suspension, complainants
decided to seek for an out-of-court settlement.

Aida (complainant) went to respondent’s law office and asked if they could
be allowed to pay their obligations by installment which the latter agreed and
on the same day, Aida tendered the first payment of P20,000.00 which was
acknowledged by Francisco in a document containing the letterhead of Yap
Law Office. Aida asked if they are still required to attend pre-trial conferences
but Atty. Francisco Yap told them that they need not to attend anymore since
they will be moving for the dismissal of the case.

Relying on the respondents' assurance, the complainants did not attend the
scheduled hearings. Subsequently, they were surprised to receive copies of
the decisions of the trial court declaring them in default for non-appearance
in the pre-trial conference and ordering them to pay the amount of their
indebtedness and damages. However, the complainants continued tendering
installment payments to the respondents upon the latter's assurance that they
will disregard the decision of the trial court since they already had an out-of-
court settlement before the rendition of said judgment.

The complainants were surprised to learn that the respondents filed a motion
for the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2000-319 which
prompted them to seek legal advice from Atty. Jose V. Cariaga who told them
that they have a good ground to file a disbarment case against the
respondents. The complainants went to Atty. Paras who just assumed
practice after his suspension.

In their comment on the complaint, respondents denied having reported


deceitful means in the two cases. They admitted that they agreed to an out-
of-court settlement but said that no single payment has been received. They
also claimed that Atty. Paras employed cajolery in order to entice the
complainants to file the instant case to retaliate against them on the reason
that respondents represented his wife who filed numerous cases against him
which resulted to his suspension.

The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline


recommended that Atty. Francisco Yap be suspended form the practice of
Law for six (6) months and dismissed Atty. Whelma Yap due to the absence
of evidence proving her participation. The IBP Board of Governors approved
IBP-CBD’s recommendation with modification that Atty. Francisco Yap be
suspended for three (3) months and warned for indirectly misleading the
Commission.

On March 26, 2006, the respondents moved for a motion for reconsideration.
On August 9, 2007, complainants terminated the services of Atty. Paras and
on the same day, complainants executed an Extrajudicial expressing their
lack of intention to initiate a disbarment case and that that statements
contained in the complaint were false thus, they wished to withdraw the
same.

The IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution denying respondent’s motion


for reconsideration and affirming IBP’s resolution. The court found no
compelling reason to deviate from the resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents employed deceit in order to mislead


the court and obtain favorable judgement
Ruling: Yes. It was clearly established that Francisco received P20,000.00 as
initial payment from the complainants in compliance with the terms of their
out-of-court settlement for the payment of the latter's outstanding
obligations. While the respondents deny that they told the complainants not
to attend the pre-trial of the case anymore, they did not bring the said
agreement to the attention of the court. Thus, the trial court rendered a
judgment by default against the complainants. The respondents even filed a
motion for execution of the decision but still did not inform the trial court of
the out-of-court settlement between them and the complainants. They
deliberately failed to mention this supervening event to the trial court, hence,
violating the standards of honesty provided for in Roles 1.01, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02
and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Further, the court cannot simply yield to complainants' change of heart by


refuting their own statements against the respondents and praying that the
complaint for disbarment they filed be dismissed. Any misconduct on the
part of the lawyer not only hurts the client's cause but is even more
disparaging on the integrity of the legal profession itself. Thus, for tarnishing
the reputation of the profession, a lawyer may still be disciplined
notwithstanding the complainant's pardon or withdrawal from the case for
as long as there is evidence to support any finding of culpability.

Wherefore, Atty. Francisco Dy Yap is SUSPENDED from the practice of law


for three (3) months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same in the
future will be dealt with severely.
Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo
A.C. No. 5816 March 10, 2015

Facts: Dr. Perez (complainant) and Atty. Catindig (respondent) had been
friends way back in college but lost touch after graduation. Sometime in 1983,
their paths crossed and respondent started to court the complainant. During
that time, Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez that he was already legally
married to Lily Corazon Gomez for the reason that he got the latter pregnant
and the scandal if he refused to marry her, would jeopardize his scholarship
at Harvard Law School.

Atty. Catindig assured Dr. Perez that he would marry her by the time he
obtains a divorce in a foreign country. Consequently, on 1984, Atty. Catindig
and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from Dominican Republic. As a result,
Atty. Catindig and Dr. Perez married in the State of Virginia, USA. Their
union was blessed with a child.

Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig was
null and void since the divorce decree from respondent’s previous marriage
was obtained from Dominican Republic which was not recognized under
Philippine Laws. Respondent assured plaintiff that he will legalize their
union by the time he obtains a divorce under Philippine Laws and that he
will legally adopt their son.

Sometime in 2001, complainant knew about respondent’s scandalous affair


with Atty. Baydo. She even came across with a letter signed by the
respondent stating that he will marry Atty. Baydo when his impediment is
removed. Month after, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and his son to
cohabit with Atty. Baydo.

Atty. Catindig, in his answer, admitted to have been married with Gomez
and that immediately after their wedding, Gomez showed signs that she was
incapable of fulfilling their marital obligations as she was having serious
intimacy problems. Their irreconcilable differences lead to their de facto
separation in 1984. Respondent likewise claimed that Dr. Perez knew from
the very beginning that the divorce decree he obtained from Puerto Rico does
not have any effect in the Philippines but the latter even forced him to marry
her.

On 2001, their relationship went sour and respondent left their home. He
alleged that Atty. Baydo was not the reason as their relationship started to
fall apart as early as 1997. He added that Atty. Baydo did not reciprocate his
feelings and in fact rejected him. Atty. Baydo denied the issue, however, she
claimed that Atty. Catindig started to court her while she was employed in
the firm but rejected the same because he was married and that he was too
old for her. Atty. Catindig still pursued her that is why she resigned from the
firm.

On May 6, 2011, the investigation Commissioner of the IBP-CBD


recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig for violating Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Baydo
was dismissed for lack of evidence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents committed gross immorality which


would warrant their disbarment.

Ruling: Yes. The court agrees with the findings of IBP-CBD and IBP Board of
Governors. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct
showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor. Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous
one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is gross when
it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency.

Atty. Catindig's subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous


one definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. By
his own admission, Atty. Catindig made a mockery out of the institution of
marriage, taking advantage of his legal skills in the process. He exhibited a
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the
bar, which thus warrant the penalty of disbarment.

Wherefore, Atty. Catindig is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of


violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
The charge of immorality against Atty. Baydo is DISMISSED for lack of
evidence.

You might also like