Facts:
Complainant
Marilou Sebastian initiated an administrative case against respondent
Atty. Dorotheo Calis for
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and for violation of his oath as a lawyer. The allegations arose from respondent’s handling of complainant’s plan to travel to the United States sometime in
November 1992. Respondent promised to process the required documents for a fee of
P150,000.00. On
December 1, 1992, complainant made a partial payment of
P20,000.00, which was received by
Ester Calis, respondent’s wife, with a receipt issued. From
January 1993 to May 1994, complainant had repeated conferences with respondent about the processing of her travel documents. During these meetings, respondent demanded an additional
P65,000.00, and he prevailed upon complainant to
resign from her job as a stenographer with the
Commission on Human Rights. On
June 20, 1994, to expedite processing, complainant issued
Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in favor of
Atty. D. Calis for
P65,000.00, and respondent issued a receipt. After receiving the payment, respondent furnished complainant with copies of
Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of questions for interviews. When complainant asked about her passport, respondent informed her that he would have her assume the name
Lizette P. Ferrer, married to
Roberto Ferrer, and employed as sales manager of
Matiao Marketing, Inc.; he furnished documents to support this assumed identity. Complainant realized she would be traveling with
spurious documents and demanded the return of her money, but respondent assured her that there was nothing to worry because he had been engaged in the business for some time, and he promised to refund her money if something went wrong. The records also show that respondent demanded payment of the required fee shortly before departure, yet the receipt for that particular payment was not given to complainant. Respondent further assured her that her passport would be given to her on her scheduled departure on
September 6, 1994. On that date, complainant received her passport and U.S. visa in the name of
Lizette P. Ferrer. She left with
Jennyfer Belo and
Maribel, who were also described as recruits of respondent. Upon arrival at the
Singapore International Airport, complainant and the other recruits were apprehended by Singapore airport officials for carrying
spurious travel documents. Respondent was contacted by overseas telephone and was informed of the situation. From
September 6 to September 9, 1994, complainant was detained at
Changi Prisons in Singapore. On
September 9, 1994, she was deported back to the Philippines, and respondent fetched her from the airport and brought her to his residence at
872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Respondent took her passport on the promise that he would secure new travel documents. Complainant later opted not to pursue further travel and demanded the return of her money in the amount of
P150,000.00. Respondent made partial refunds on
June 4, 1996,
June 18, 1996, and
July 5, 1996 in amounts of
P15,000.00,
P6,000.00, and
P5,000.00, leaving a balance of
P114,000.00. On
December 19, 1996, complainant through counsel sent a demand letter for the refund of the remaining
P114,000.00, but respondent ignored it. In
March 1997, complainant attempted to see respondent but was told by his wife that respondent was in Cebu. In
May 1997, complainant was informed that respondent had transferred to an unknown residence, allegedly to evade responsibility. The complaint was supported by photocopies of receipts, visa applications, and interview questions and answers, as well as documents showing partial refunds and the demand letter. Respondent received notices to answer or comment but failed to respond and did not attend scheduled hearings; the investigation therefore proceeded
ex parte. The
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) reported that while the claim of illegal recruitment was not established, respondent was guilty of
gross misconduct for violating
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending that he be suspended until he fully refunds the fees and complies with the Commission’s orders. The
IBP Board of Governors then amended the recommendation and resolved that respondent be
disbarred. On review, the Court sustained the IBP’s findings and imposed disbarment while ordering payment of the remaining
P114,000.00 to complainant.
Issues:
Whether respondent
Atty. Dorotheo Calis should be
disbarred for
gross misconduct based on
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and his violation of the lawyer’s oath.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: