1. MICHELLE YAP vs. ATTY. GRACE C.

BURI
A.C. No. 11156. March 19, 2018. Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3680

Topic: (based sa syllabus) Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Facts: Complainant Michelle Yap was the vendor in a contract of sale of a

condominium unit, while Atty. Grace C. Buri was the vendee. Buri made an offer to
purchase the property but asked for the reduction of the price from P1,500,000.00
to P1,200,000.00. After consulting with her husband, Yap agreed. Of the total
amount of purchase price of P1,200,000.00, P200,000.00 remains unpaid.

Because she trusted the respondent, Yap gave Buri the full and immediate
possession of the condominium unit upon completion of the P1,000,000.00 despite
the outstanding balance and even without the necessary Deed of Absolute Sale.
However, when Yap finally asked for the balance in January 2011, Buri said she
would pay it on a monthly installment of P5,000.00 until fully paid. When Yap
disagreed, Buri said she would just cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also started
threatening her through text messages, and then later on filed a case for estafa
against her. Said case was later dismissed.

Yap then filed an administrative complaint against Buri for the alleged false
accusations against her.

When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed to comply. She did not even appear
during the mandatory conference. Thus, the mandatory conference was terminated
and the parties were simply required to submit their respective position papers.
However, only Yap complied with said order.

Issues: Whether or not Buri should be suspended by the Commission on Bar

Discipline of the IBP?

Ruling: YES. Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's Oath that enjoins her to
support the Constitution and obey the laws. She also took for granted the express
commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The foregoing canons require of Buri, as a lawyer, an enduring high sense of

responsibility and good fidelity in all her dealings and emphasize the high standard
of honesty and fairness expected of her, not only in the practice of the legal
profession, but in her personal dealings as well. A lawyer must conduct himself with
great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all
times.

Here, instead of paying Yap the remaining balance of the purchase price of the
condominium unit, Buri opted to simply threaten her and file a criminal case against
her. Obviously, this strategy was to intimidate Yap and prevent her from collecting
the remaining P200,000.00.

Buri's persistent refusal to pay her obligation despite frequent demands clearly
reflects her lack of integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her
knowledge of the law and clearly resorted to threats and intimidation in order to get
away with what she wanted, constituting a gross violation of professional ethics and
a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

25. VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR. vs. ATTY. ANSELMO S.

ECHANEZ
A.C. No. 10911. June 6, 2017.

Topic: Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, Bar Matter No. 850; Number and
Date of MCLE Certificate of Completion required in all pleadings, motions, Bar
Matter No. 1922

Facts: Complainant alleged that in an action for Recovery of Possession and

Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, complainant was one of
the plaintiffs while respondent was the defendants’ counsel therein. As the said
case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs, respondent indicated his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance No. II-0014038 without indicating
the date of issue thereof. On appeal, respondent filed the appellants' brief, again
only indicating his MCLE Compliance Number.

Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had no
MCLE compliance yet. The MCLE Office then issued a Certification, stating that
respondent had not yet complied with his MCLE requirements for the First and
Second Compliance Period.

Hence, this complaint. Complainant argues that respondent's act of deliberately and
unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and counsels concerned into believing
that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had not, is a
serious malpractice and grave misconduct. The complainant, thus, prayed for the
IBP to recommend respondent's disbarment to this Court.

Issues: Whether or not respondent should be administratively disciplined?

Ruling: YES. It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No.
850. No less than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent
had not complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently
false information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four
times, as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and
deceit. Respondent's act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false
information is a mockery of the courts.

Also, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides:

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.

Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR likewise states:

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put his
own clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect. In so doing,
respondent violated his duty to his clients. Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR provide:

CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed upon him.

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Respondent's act of ignoring the court orders despite notice violates the lawyer's
oath and runs counter to the precepts of the CPR. By his repeated dismissive
conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority
of the Court.

Respondent in this case is DISBARRED from the practice of law.