A.C. No. 7986 - IN RE: Lopez

The case involves Atty. Jaime V. Lopez (respondent), who was subject to disciplinary proceedings in both California, USA, and the Philippines.
Respondent was disbarred from practicing law in California in 2000 following several violations related to client funds and professional misconduct.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), through its Board of Governors, adopted and modified the recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) to disbar respondent from practice in the Philippines.

In 1999, the State Bar Court of California issued a Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) against respondent for:

Failure to promptly notify his client, Jemuel C. Monte-Alegre, of receipt of settlement funds of USD 25,000.00.
Failure to maintain client funds in a trust account, leading to overdrawing of that account without disbursing funds to the client or lienholders.
Misappropriation of funds, constituting moral turpitude.
Issuing checks on the trust account knowing insufficient funds existed, again amounting to misappropriation and moral turpitude.
Failure to update his official address with the State Bar of California, violating procedural compliance requirements.

Respondent did not respond or appear during the California proceedings, resulting in default and recommendation for disbarment.
The California Supreme Court ordered respondent’s disbarment on June 2, 2000.

In April 2007, the Philippine Supreme Court was informed of California proceedings against respondent.
The Philippine Supreme Court initially docketed the case and referred it to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation.
Respondent was ordered to show cause and submit a certified true copy of the California decision but failed to do so timely.
Repeated attempts to serve respondent were unsuccessful; several mailings were returned unserved due to address issues.
NBI located respondent teaching at Lyceum of the Philippines-Makati, and documents were served there.
Despite notices and orders, respondent largely remained uncooperative, failing to attend mandatory conferences and comply with procedural directives.
Respondent filed motions for extension and a comment, but addressed the case inconsistently and used the incorrect docket number.

The CBD found substantive violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) involving failure to notify client, mishandling of trust funds, misappropriation, issuance of bad checks, and disregard of court orders.
The CBD recommended suspension of respondent for three years.
The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to disbarment.

Respondent is a lifetime IBP member and admitted to the Philippine Bar since 1981.
He was admitted to the California State Bar in 1988 but became ineligible to practice there in 1996 and was disbarred in 2000.
The Supreme Court noted respondent’s contumacious conduct throughout the proceedings.

Whether the decision of the California Supreme Court disbarring respondent constitutes prima facie evidence for disciplinary action in the Philippines.
Whether respondent’s acts in the foreign jurisdiction constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under the Philippine Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the respondent’s failure to comply with Philippine court directives warrants additional disciplinary sanctions.
What is the appropriate penalty for respondent’s violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.