Title
Lampas-Peralta vs. Ramon
Case
A.C. No. 12415
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2019
Atty. Ramon fabricated a fake CA decision, extorted money from clients, and failed to defend herself, leading to her disbarment for grave misconduct and ethical violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190912)

Antecedents

On March 4, 2016, complainants learned that Maria Rossan De Jesus had sought verification from the Office of the Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals regarding a decision allegedly authored by the complainants in a criminal case involving Tirso Fajardo. The respondent had presented this purported decision, claiming it indicated Fajardo's acquittal, but also suggested that the formal promulgation depended on payment to her. After investigation, it was revealed that the case was still pending and that the decision was fabricated. Subsequently, the respondent was apprehended in an entrapment operation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on March 8, 2016, after receiving marked money for the fake decision.

Administrative Complaint

The complainants filed a disbarment complaint against the respondent, asserting that she falsely represented herself as capable of influencing Justices of the Court of Appeals, defrauded clients for approximately one million pesos, and displayed gross disrespect toward the court and judiciary. The respondent failed to respond to the complaint or attend related proceedings.

IBP Report and Recommendation

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission recommended disbarment due to the respondent’s violations of her professional duties and the ethical standards outlined in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings, confirming the recommendation for disbarment.

Court's Ruling

In its decision, the Court affirmed the IBP's findings, emphasizing the essential integrity and honesty required of members of the legal profession. The ruling reiterated that being a member of the bar entails significant responsibilities, and lawyers must uphold the law and maintain public confidence in the legal system.

Violations of the Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility

The Court found that the respondent's actions constituted serious violations of the Lawyer's Oath and multiple canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She misrepresented a fake decision and solicited substantial payment under false pretenses, actions underscoring her clear intent to violate both ethical and legal standards.

Assessment of Grave Misconduct

The respondent's actions were categorized as grave misconduct due to elements of corruption and a clear intent to violate the law. The nature of her misconduct, particularly her manipulative actions against clients and fraudulent representation, demonstrated a gross disregard for the legal profession's integrity.

Appropriate Penalty

Considering

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.