Title
Sebastian vs. Calis
Case
A.C. No. 5118
Decision Date
Sep 9, 1999
Atty. Dorotheo Calis disbarred for gross misconduct, deceiving complainant with spurious travel documents, failing to refund fees, and evading IBP proceedings. Ordered to pay P114,000 balance.
disbarment
unethical conduct
deceitful conduct
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5118)

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that sometime in November 1992, she was referred to the respondent, who promised to process the necessary documents for her trip to the United States for a fee of P150,000.00. On December 1, 1992, the complainant made a partial payment of P20,000.00, received by Ester Calis, the respondent’s wife, for which a receipt was issued.

From January 1993 to May 1994, the complainant had repeated conferences with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel documents. During these meetings, the respondent demanded an additional amount of P65,000.00. He also prevailed upon her to resign from her job as a stenographer with the Commission on Human Rights. On June 20, 1994, to facilitate processing, the complainant issued Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 for P65,000.00 in favor of Atty. D. Calis, and the respondent issued a receipt.

After receiving this amount, the respondent furnished the complainant copies of a Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of questions for the interview. When the complainant inquired about her passport, the respondent informed her that he would be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer, married to Roberto Ferrer, and employed as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. The complainant was then provided documents to support this assumed identity.

The complainant later became aware that she would be traveling with spurious documents. She demanded the return of her money, but the respondent assured her that nothing untoward would happen. He allegedly promised that her money would be refunded if something went wrong and represented that he had been engaged in the business for a considerable period.

Weeks before her departure, the respondent demanded payment of the required fee, but the complainant alleged that a corresponding receipt was not provided. She also asked for her passport and received assurances that it would be delivered at departure, which was scheduled for September 6, 1994. On that date, she was given her passport and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer. She departed with other recruits of the respondent, including Jennyfer Belo and Maribel.

Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, the complainant and her companions were apprehended by Singapore airport officials for carrying spurious travel documents. She contacted the respondent through overseas telephone and informed him of her predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994, she was detained at Changi Prisons. On September 9, 1994, she was deported to the Philippines. The respondent allegedly fetched her at the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila.

The respondent took the complainant’s passport, promising to secure new travel documents. Because she opted not to pursue the travel further, the complainant demanded the return of her money in the amount of P150,000.00. The respondent made partial refunds on June 4, 1996, June 18, 1996, and July 5, 1996, in the amounts of P15,000.00, P6,000.00, and P5,000.00, respectively. On December 19, 1996, through counsel, the complainant sent a demand letter for the refund of the remaining balance of P114,000.00, but the respondent ignored the demand.

In March 1997, the complainant tried to see the respondent, but his wife informed her that he was in Cebu. In May 1997, the complainant again attempted to locate him and learned that he had transferred to an unknown residence, apparently to evade responsibility. The complaint was accompanied by photocopies of receipts for amounts paid, visa application documents, interview questions and answers, and receipts acknowledging partial refunds, as well as the demand letter for the remaining P114,000.00.

Despite notices to answer or comment and summons to attend, the respondent did not respond and did not appear at the scheduled hearings. The proceedings consequently advanced ex parte.

IBP Proceedings and Findings

The Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report on September 24, 1998. It found that the complainant’s services were engaged to secure a visa for her U.S. travel. The Commission ruled that the charge of illegal recruitment was not established, observing that the complainant did not allege any specific job or employment promised for abroad and that the arrangement referred to visa securing only.

The Commission also took note of the complainant’s acceptance of the respondent’s proposed method of obtaining the visa using an assumed name, which the Commission considered to negate deceit in that aspect. It further noted that the respondent had made partial refunds of the fees. However, it found other circumstances compelling: the respondent’s transfer of residence without a forwarding address suggested an attempt to escape responsibility. Based on these findings, the Commission declared the respondent guilty of gross misconduct for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Commission recommended suspension until the respondent fully refunded the fees paid and complied with the IBP’s orders pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court. Upon review, the IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated December 4, 1998, adopted the Commission’s Report and Recommendation with an amendment. While it accepted the finding that illegal recruitment was not proven, it amended the recommended penalty and resolved that the respondent be disbarred, characterizing the conduct as gross misconduct involving unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful acts.

The Parties’ Positions in the IBP and on Review

In the proceedings below, the respondent did not participate. The Commission treated the investigation ex parte due to his inexplicable failure, or obdurate refusal, to comply with the IBP’s orders. The Court later noted his failure to answer, his absence from hearings, and his disregard of summons, which the Court treated as contemptuous and reflective of unprofessional conduct.

The complainant’s position, as narrated in the IBP findings, rested on the respondent’s promises to process her U.S. visa and furnish documents and assurances regarding safety, coupled with allegations that her travel was enabled through spurious documents and an assumed identity. She also relied on the respondent’s refusal to return the demanded remaining balance after partial refunds.

Legal Issues Framed by the IBP Findings

The principal issue before the IBP was whether the respondent’s conduct warranted disciplinary sanction under the professional standards governing lawyers, specifically whether it constituted gross misconduct involving unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A subsidiary matter involved whether the respondent’s acts amounted to illegal recruitment. Both the Commission and the IBP Board of Governors concluded that the charge was not established because the complainant failed to substantiate that she had been promised a particular job or employment abroad, and because the only service identified was securing a visa.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court evaluated the IBP recommendation for final action. It found that the IBP Board of Governors acted properly in adopting and approving the Commission’s findings, except as to the modification of the penalty already made. The Court agreed that the illegal recruitment charge was not proven, reiterating that the complainant did not mention any specific job placement or employment abroad and that the arrangement described was limited to visa processing.

On the misconduct issue, the Court concurred with the Board’s conclusion that the respondent was guilty of gross misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that the respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could provide a visa and travel documents; that despite the use of spurious documents, nothing untoward would happen; that he would guarantee her arrival in the United States; and that he would refund the fees and expenses if something went wrong. The Court emphasized that the deception and fraudulent acts of a lawyer were disgraceful and dishonorable, revealing moral defects incompatible with the duties of the legal profession.

The Court also treated the respondent’s refusal to comply with IBP orders, and his total disregard of the IBP summons, as contemptuous acts that reflected unprofessional conduct. It therefore ordered the most severe penalty: the respondent was disbarred, with his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Finally, the Court required immediate payment to the complainant of the remaining amount of P114,000.00, corresponding to the fees the respondent collected and unjustifiably retained despite demand.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its reasoning in the nature and demands of the legal profession. It underscored that a lawyer’s relationship with others must be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness, and candor, which the Court tied to the essence of the lawyer’s oath. The Court treated the lawyer’s oath as a sacred trust that must be kept inviolate.

It further reasoned that the practice of law is not a mere right but a privilege conditioned on continued good behavior. Accordingly, the Court reiterated that a lawyer may be deprived of the license to practice law for misconduct ascertained and declared through pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms