Case Summary (G.R. No. 192650)
Criminal Conviction
Complainant filed graft and estafa charges in January 2003. After trial, the Sandiganbayan, on September 30, 2010, convicted respondent of RA 3019 § 3(e) and estafa (RPC Art. 315(2)(a)), sentencing him to indeterminate imprisonment and ordering restitution of PHP 1.4 million. The conviction was promulgated in absentia; a motion for reconsideration was denied and no appeal was filed.
Administrative Proceedings Initiation
On grounds of dishonesty and moral turpitude, complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment before the IBP-CBD. Despite multiple orders and notices (October 1, 2013 onward), respondent did not file an answer or appear at the mandatory conference set for February 27, 2014, leading the IBP-CBD to resolve the case on the basis of complainant’s evidence.
IBP-CBD Findings
In its November 3, 2020 Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD held that:
• Respondent’s conviction for estafa is a crime involving moral turpitude warranting disbarment under Rule 138 § 27.
• His deceit in misusing his government post violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the CPR.
The IBP-CBD recommended disbarment and striking of respondent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
By Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2022-10-07 (October 1, 2022), the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD’s recommendation, imposing:
• Disbarment from the practice of law
• A fine of PHP 5,000 for each instance of non-compliance with IBP-CBD directives (total PHP 20,000)
Verification of Notice and Waiver
The Supreme Court, in a July 25, 2023 resolution, found all notices to respondent returned unserved. His failure to update addresses with the IBP constituted a waiver of the right to contest the administrative complaint, permitting resolution on the existing record.
Supreme Court Ruling on Moral Turpitude
While recognizing that estafa is per se a crime of moral turpitude, the Court noted the absence of a certificate of finality. Nonetheless, it concluded that respondent’s misconduct independently violated the high moral standards required of lawyers, justifying disbarment under Rule 138 § 27 and CPRA Canons.
Violation of CPRA Canons
Under the CPRA, Canon II mandates propriety, honesty, and avoidance of conflicts in government service. Respondent:
• Engaged in deceitful and immoral con
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192650)
Antecedents
- In July 2000, respondent Atty. Jorge P. Monroy, then Director III of Financial Services at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), offered to sell a confiscated Toyota Land Cruiser to complainant Julieta L. Co for PHP 1.4 million.
- Julieta, accompanied by her sister and brother-in-law (the Ques), inspected the vehicle at the BOC depot after introductions by Atty. Monroy to his nephew Remus Erlan S. Palmos and broker Ben Valic.
- Trusting their long-time family friend, Julieta paid PHP 150,000 by check on July 18, 2000, and attempted to pay the PHP 1,250,000 balance in manager’s check on July 21, 2000, but was coerced into cash payment.
- Despite payment, release of the vehicle was delayed for lack of a Department of Finance (DOF) signature; on July 24, 2000, Atty. Monroy admitted someone absconded with the money and issued a receipt promising refund.
- Julieta’s repeated demands for return of her funds went unanswered.
Criminal Proceedings
- On January 24, 2003, Julieta filed two criminal informations in Sandiganbayan: one for violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), and another for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
- After trial, the Sandiganbayan promulgated judgment in absentia on September 30, 2010, finding Atty. Monroy guilty of both charges and sentencing him to varying terms of imprisonment with perpetual disqualification from public office and ordering restitution of PHP 1,400,000.
- Atty. Monroy failed to appear for promulgation, remained at large, and did not perfect an appeal, rendering the decision final and executory.
Administrative Complaint before IBP-CBD
- Julieta filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging bad fait