Case Digest (A.C. No. 7861)
Facts:
Wilhelmina C. Virgo vs. Atty. Oliver V. Amorin, A.C. No. 7861 (CBD Case No. 06-1829), January 30, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Wilhelmina C. Virgo filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline a Complaint dated September 11, 2006 charging respondent Atty. Oliver V. Amorin with misconduct for allegedly using his legal knowledge to induce the Virgos to part with real property (the “Virgo Mansion”) and then failing to pay the agreed purchase price of P45,000,000, issuing checks that were dishonored and altering signatures; complainant alleged she and her husband received only P20,000,000 and that she suffered damage to reputation and credit when she sued for estafa and violations of B.P. Blg. 22 on February 1, 2002.
Atty. Amorin answered denying wrongdoing, asserting the property was sold not to him personally but to Loveland Estate Developers, Inc. (LEDI) of which he was president, and that the CA decision in CA‑GR SP No. 77986 and other pleadings showed the Virgos acted in bad faith; he also maintained there was no attorney‑client relationship, and that many of the factual questions raised were the subject of pending litigation—Civil Case No. Q‑01‑45798 (RTC‑QC Branch 221), LRC Case No. Q‑15382 (02) (RTC‑QC Branch 216), and the CA petition in CA‑GR SP No. 77986.
A Mandatory Conference before the IBP Investigating Commissioner was held on March 16, 2007; both parties submitted position papers and exhibits. Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag issued a Report dated January 7, 2008 finding Atty. Amorin guilty of misconduct and recommending suspension for six months for violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the recommendation and, by RESOLUTION NO. XVIII‑2008‑77 dated February 6, 2008, suspended Atty. Amorin from the practice of law for one ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is there sufficient evidence to support the IBP Board of Governors’ finding that Atty. Amorin violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using his legal knowledge and training to induce complainant to part with her property and thereby defraud her?
- Can the Court of Appeals decision in CA‑GR SP No. 77986 serve as evidence against complainant Virgo in the IBP administrative proceedings?
- May the IBP Board of Governors lawfully decide the present complaint where material facts are the subject ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)