A.C. No. 13753 - Julieta L. Co vs. Atty. Jorge P. Monroy

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13753)

Factual Background

In July 2000 respondent offered to sell to Julieta a Toyota Land Cruiser allegedly among BOC-confiscated vehicles for PHP 1.4 million. Respondent, a senior BOC official, represented the transaction as legitimate and assured issuance of official receipts. On July 12, 2000 he introduced Julieta and her companions to Palmos and Valic and aided inspection at the BOC depot. Payment arrangements followed: a PHP 150,000 check payable to cash handed to respondent on July 18, 2000; on July 21, 2000 the balance was tendered in cash to respondent in his office after he declined a manager’s check. Repeated delays ensued with explanations that a DOF signatory was pending; accompanying visits and representations to DOF personnel were made on July 24, 2000. Respondent ultimately admitted that the money could not be traced because “someone ran off with the money,” and issued a receipt promising refund. Julieta’s repeated demands for return were ignored and respondent allegedly avoided her and relatives.

Criminal Proceedings and Outcome at the Sandiganbayan

On January 24, 2003 Julieta filed two criminal informations against respondent: one for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and another for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. After trial the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Decision on September 30, 2010 finding respondent guilty of both offenses and imposing prison terms, perpetual disqualification from public office (for the RA 3019 conviction), and an order to return PHP 1,400,000 to Julieta. The Sandiganbayan’s Decision was promulgated in absentia due to respondent’s nonappearance; respondent remained at large despite issuance of an arrest warrant.

Administrative Complaint Before IBP and IBP-CBD Proceedings

Separately, Julieta filed an administrative complaint for disbarment with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging that respondent exploited his government position and personal friendship to defraud her of PHP 1.4 million, thereby engaging in dishonest, immoral and unlawful conduct violative of the ethical standards for lawyers. The IBP-CBD directed respondent to file a verified answer (Order dated October 1, 2013) and set a mandatory conference (notice dated for February 27, 2014). Respondent did not answer nor appear; several notices sent to his last known addresses were returned unserved. The IBP-CBD concluded that respondent waived the right to present evidence and proceeded to resolve the complaint.

IBP-CBD Report and IBP Board Resolution

In its November 3, 2020 Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD found that respondent’s conviction for estafa (a crime involving moral turpitude) supplied grounds for disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27, and that his conduct violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the CPR. The IBP-CBD recommended disbarment and striking from the Roll of Attorneys. On October 1, 2022 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD recommendation, approved disbarment, and recommended a PHP 20,000 fine (PHP 5,000 each) for respondent’s failures to file an answer, to file a mandatory conference brief, to appear during the mandatory conference, and to submit a position paper.

Service Issues, Waiver and Court’s Procedural Determinations

The Supreme Court observed that the notices sent by the IBP to respondent’s last known addresses were returned unserved. By resolution dated July 25, 2023 the Court ordered the IBP-CBD to verify whether respondent had been duly notified and to submit last known addresses; the IBP-CBD replied by letter dated November 16, 2023 that it could not verify receipt of prior notices because records had been forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant and that the last Notice of Resolution (Oct. 1, 2022) was likewise returned. The Court attributed the difficulty in service to respondent’s failure to update his addresses with the IBP and concluded that respondent effectively waived his right to contest the administrative allegations by failing to comply with notification and procedural duties.

Governing Standards for Discipline and Effect of Criminal Conviction

The Court reiterated that membership in the Bar is a privilege conditioned on continuing moral fitness and that disbarment focuses on whether an attorney is fit to remain an officer of the court. Under Rule 138, Section 27 a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude can be ground for disbarment; the Court recognized settled precedents that estafa is a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court also emphasized that, as a general rule, a criminal conviction ordinarily must be final before it will operate as an automatic basis for disbarment. However, the late adoption of the CPRA (which repealed the CPR but applies retroactively to pending cases) required evaluation of respondent’s conduct under CPRA provisions parallel to the prior CPR canons.

Application of the CPRA and Specific Ethical Violations Found

The Court applied the CPRA (retroactively to the pending administrative proceeding) and identified violations of CPRA Canon II: Section 1 (prohibition on unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct), Section 2 (dignified conduct and avoidance of conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice), and Section 28 (dignified government service; lawyers in government shall not use public position to advance private interests). The Court found that respondent used his BOC office, office staff and his official standing to create the appearance of a legitimate sale of a confiscated vehicle, induced Julieta’s trust, received PHP 1.4 million in cash in his official setting, and then failed to account for or return the funds—claiming an alleged theft—while issuing receipts and employing subordinates to facilitate the transaction. Those facts, together with the Sandiganbayan’s findings regarding irregularity of the sale and respondent’s conviction for the underlying crimes, demonstrated respondent’s violation of the ethical standards applicable to lawyers generally and to lawyers in government service.

Final Determination and Rationale for Disbarment

The Cour

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13753)

Title, Citation and Nature of Proceeding

En Banc case identified as A.C. No. 13753, decided February 06, 2024, captioned "JULIETA L. CO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JORGE P. MONROY, RESPONDENT."
Decision is per curiam by the Supreme Court, resolving an administrative Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
The complaint alleges violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and related accountability provisions; the Court proceeded to address both the administrative charge and related procedural matters.

Antecedent Facts (Transaction and Alleged Deception)

In July 2000, respondent Atty. Jorge P. Monroy offered to sell a Toyota Land Cruiser to complainant Julieta L. Co for PHP 1.4 million; the vehicle was among those confiscated by the Bureau of Customs (BOC), where Atty. Monroy served as Director III of Financial Services.
Atty. Monroy assured Julieta that the sale transaction was legal and that official receipts would be issued in their favor.
On July 12, 2000, Julieta, her sister Maria Victoria L. Que, and her husband Romeo Que went to Atty. Monroy’s office at South Pier, Manila; there Atty. Monroy introduced them to Remus Erlan S. Palmos (his nephew and personal staff) and Ben Valic (a licensed broker) as facilitators for the vehicle release.
Palmos and Valic took the group to the BOC vehicle depot to inspect the Land Cruiser; Julieta’s longstanding acquaintance and trust in Atty. Monroy influenced her decision to proceed with the purchase.
Per Atty. Monroy’s instructions, Julieta and the Spouses Que prepared a PHP 150,000 check payable to cash and delivered it personally to Atty. Monroy on July 18, 2000, with a return date set for July 21, 2000 to pay the balance.
On July 21, 2000, Julieta prepared a manager’s check for PHP 1,250,000 but Atty. Monroy insisted on and personally received cash payment in his office; the parties waited all day for the vehicle release and were told a Department of Finance (DOF) signatory had not yet signed release documents.
On July 24, 2000, after further visits and representations involving Palmos and supposed DOF officials (including references to Undersecretary Cornelio Giron’s office), Atty. Monroy admitted the vehicle could not be released because someone had run off with the money and could not be located.
To defer their concerns, Atty. Monroy and Palmos issued a receipt to guarantee return of the money; despite repeated demands, Julieta received no return of the PHP 1.4 million and experienced repeated avoidance by Atty. Monroy and his relatives.

Criminal Proceedings and Sandiganbayan Decision

On January 24, 2003, Julieta filed two Informations as Criminal Case Nos. 27767–27768 against Atty. Monroy: one for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and another for estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
After trial, the Sandiganbayan issued a Decision finding Atty. Monroy guilty of both charges; the Decision was promulgated in absentia on September 30, 2010 due to the non-appearance of Atty. Monroy and his counsel, and he remained at large despite a warrant of arrest.
The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan Decision ordered: (1) conviction for violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019, with imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office; and (2) conviction for estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC, with imprisonment and an order to return PHP 1,400,000 to private offended party Julieta Lim-Co.
The record indicates that Atty. Monroy’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan and that, according to the complainant’s allegation, no appeal was filed, which she asserts made the Decision final and executory.

Administrative Complaint and Grounds for Disbarment

Julieta filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment on grounds that Atty. Monroy: acted in utter bad faith; used his government position to defraud her of PHP 1.4 million; abused her trust as a friend; committed dishonest, immoral, and unlawful acts in gross violation of the CPR; and that his criminal convictions for offenses involving moral turpitude furnish valid grounds for disbarment.
The central allegation is that Atty. Monroy used his official position and office staff at the BOC to create an appearance of legitimacy for the fraudulent sale, thereby inducing Julieta to part with the funds.

IBP–CBD Proceedings, Notices, and Complainant’s Submissions

On October 1, 2013, the IBP-CBD directed Atty. Monroy to submit a verified answer; no answer was filed, and there is no proof the Order was received by Atty. Monroy.
The IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference scheduling a conference for February 27, 2014 and requiring mandatory conference briefs; Julieta filed her mandatory conference brief, while Atty. Monroy did not file any brief or appear.
Multiple subsequent orders and notices of hearing sent by the IBP-CBD to Atty. Monroy’s last known addresses were returned unserved; the IBP-CBD found no showing that he received those notices.
Due to Atty. Monroy’s non-appearance and non-filing, the IBP-CBD considered him to have waived the right to present evidence and proceeded to dispose of the disbarment complaint on the basis of available evidence.

IBP–CBD Report and Recommendation and IBP Board Resolution

In its November 3, 2020 Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD ruled that: (a) Atty. Monroy’s conviction for estafa, a crime involving moral turpitude, constituted sufficient ground for disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court; and (b) his deceitful conduct in failing to return Julieta’s PHP 1.4 million violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the CPR.
The IBP-CBD recommended disbarment and that Atty. Monroy’s name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
On October 1, 2022, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation, resolving to impose the penalty of DISBARMENT and recommending a fine totaling PHP 20,000.00 (PHP 5,000.00 each) for Atty. Monroy’s fai