Case Digest (A.C. No. 7986)
Facts:
In Re: Resolution Dated 05 August 2008 in A.M. No. 07-4-11-SC, A.C. No. 7986 (July 27, 2021), 908 Phil. 512; 120 OG No. 9, 1755 (February 26, 2024), the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The respondent is Atty. Jaime V. Lopez, a member of both the Philippine Bar (admitted 1979; effective 1 July 1981) and the State Bar of California (Bar No. 134226, admitted 14 June 1988). The administrative proceedings originated when the Supreme Court received information on 3 April 2007 concerning disciplinary charges and eventual disbarment proceedings against him in California.
In California the State Bar filed Notices of Disciplinary Charges on 6 August 1999 (Case Nos. 96-O-04592 and 96-O-06201) alleging, inter alia, failure to notify a client of receipt of settlement funds, failure to keep client funds in trust, misappropriation of client funds, issuance of checks against insufficient or closed trust accounts, and failure to maintain current membership records (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6002.1). The State Bar Court entered default after respondent did not respond, recommended disbarment, and on 2 June 2000 the Supreme Court of California ordered respondent disbarred in S087012, In re Jaime V. Lopez.
The matter was initially docketed in the Philippines as A.M. No. 07-4-11-SC. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and later issued a resolution dated 5 August 2008 converting the report into Administrative Case No. 7986 and ordering respondent to show cause and to furnish an official copy of the California decision. Notices and subsequent resolutions were sent to addresses respondent supplied but several were returned unserved; the OBC, the NBI and the Court nonetheless obtained the California decision (official copy received 5 November 2009) and effected service through alternative means.
On referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) conducted investigation; respondent repeatedly failed to appear for mandatory conferences and to comply with directives. The CBD Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation (9 January 2014) finding violations of multiple Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 1, 7, 10, 16 and applicable rules) and recommending suspension for up to three years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but modified the penalty to disbarment in Resolution No. XX1-2015-292 dated 18 April 2015. The IBP transmitted its resolution and the records to the Supreme Court; the Court noted the IBP action and, after review, affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a judgment of a foreign disciplinary tribunal (the California Supreme Court decision) serve as prima facie evidence and ground for disciplinary action against a Filipino lawyer in the Philippines?
- Did respondent’s acts as found by the California courts and by the IBP amount to violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disciplinary action under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and related provisions?
- Is disbarme...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)