Case Digest (A.C. No. 6788)
Facts:
Diana Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, A.C. No. 6788 (formerly CBD 382), August 23, 2007, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainant Diana Ramos engaged respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in 1992 to assist in filing civil and criminal actions against Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. Ramos gave respondent a total of P8,500 as attorney’s fees but respondent issued a receipt for only P5,000. Ramos attended several scheduled hearings but alleged respondent repeatedly prevented her entry to the courtroom, later told her the hearings were postponed, and charged P350 for each of six purported “appearances.”
Suspicious after six postponements, Ramos inquired at the trial courts in Biñan and San Pedro, Laguna, and learned that respondent had never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was employed by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). Respondent’s account was that he had been a district attorney in the Citizens’ Legal Assistance Office (predecessor to PAO) and initially declined private employment because Ramos was not indigent; he claimed he advised her to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, who also refused for lack of an acceptance fee. Respondent alleged Ramos insisted he keep P5,000 for safekeeping and later requested an antedated receipt dated July 15, 1992; respondent resigned from PAO on April 15, 1994 and later attempted to prepare a complaint in September 1994 but lost contact with Ramos.
The complaint for disbarment/suspension was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) conducted a hearing, received evidence, and on November 22, 2004 submitted a report finding respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; it recommended suspension for three years and restitution of P5,000. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the restitution order to include legal interest from 199...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent, while employed by the PAO, engage in the private practice of law and accept attorney’s fees, thereby establishing an attorney-client relationship and violating the prohibitions applicable to government lawyers?
- Did respondent’s conduct constitute a violation of Rule 16.01 (failure to account for money held for a client)?
- What disciplinary sanction, if any, should be imposed and is re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)