LIZASO v AMANTE
7 that
AM No. 2019 | June 3, 1991
GAYARES
COMPLAINANT:
Shirley Lizaso
RESPONDENT:
Atty. Sergio Amante
DOCTRINE:
An attorney may be removed or disciplined not
only for malpractice and dishonesty but also for
gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties.
FACTS:
 Lizaso filed a sworn complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Amante due to
deceitful and grossly immoral conduct
conducted by the latter. Court required
respondent to file an answer and so he
did.
 The case was handed over to the OSG
for investigation, report and
recommendation. The OSG summarized
the case in his report and
recommendation.
 The report states the following:
o Lizaso handed to Amante
Prudential Bank Check No.
655615 in the amount of P5k,
which is payable to the latter
and which per agreement
between the two of them, was
to be invested in respondent’s
business venture in the casino.
o Lizaso was enticed into
investing in the business by
respondent’s proposition that
the business will guarantee her
an interest rate of 10% profit
per day.
o Lizaso was further convinced
because she knows of her
sister’s friend who deals in the
same business in the casino
and who even accepts
jewelries from gamblers who
lost heavily. The check was
encashed by Amante as
evidenced by his signature at
the back of the check.
o Lizaso originally prepared the
check and the receipt on Aug.
4. It was only on Aug.
she was able to see Amante
and gave him the P5k check
for which respondent signed
the receipt.
o Three days after, Lizaso tried
to see Amante in order to
collect the interest but
respondent failed to give her
any. For the many weeks that
followed, Lizaso begged
Amante to return her money if
he could not give the interests
but respondent merely made
promises.
o Afraid that her investment will
not be returned, Lizaso sought
the help of the UE Legal
Department Head, Atty. Siojo
who scheduled a confrontation
but Amante failed to appear
both in the first and second
meeting. Siojo informs Lizaso
that he cannot do anything if
he refuses to appear.
o Lizaso approached UE Faculty
President, Antonio Ravelo, but
the latter did not help her since
respondent denied the
allegations.
o Lizaso sought the help of the
University President, Conrado
Aquino, but the latter said that
this is a personal agreement
that should be settled by the
parties.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Amante, in failing to account for and
return the P5k, is guilty of sidhonest and
immoral conduct?
HELD:
YES – The court is convinced that Amante
converted the amount given to him for
investment for his personal use. This dishonest
conduct was established by his efforts to deny
and dissimulate the transaction that he had
entered into with Lizaso. As the records of the
case show, Amante has not returned Lizaso’s
money.
RATIO:
After careful examination of the records, the
Court agrees with the OSG that Lizaso has
discharged the burden of showing, by clear and
convincing evidence, that she had delivered P5k
to Amante for investment purposes but that the
latter failed to deliver the promised return despite
repeated demands.
Additionally, the OSG found respondent’s
version of the facts to be unreal and implausible,
especially since the exhibits submitted by
Amante appeared to be fabricated and
manufactured.

Thus, it appears to the Court that respondent

failed to return and account for Lizaso’s money.
It also appears that when the issue was finally
brought to the OSG, Amante tried to controvert
Lizaso’s charges by using falsified documents
and tried to make it appear that he had delivered
it in response to a payment for a prior loan.

There is no attorney-client relationship between

the two since the transaction did not require the
performance of professional legal services. Thus,
the Court earlier ruled in Re Vicent Pelaez that it
can exercise its power to discipline lawyers for
causes which do not involve the relationship of
an attorney any client. It is also established that
the misconduct, which is indicative of moral
unfitness, whether relating to professional or
non-professional matters, justifies suspension or
disbarment, which was expressed by CJ Prentice
in Re Disbarment of Peck. Justice Malcolm in
Piatt v Abordo also explained that an attorney
may be removed or disciplined not only for
malpractice and dishonesty but also for gross
misconduct not connected with his professional
duties.

Finally, in Rule 191 set out in Chapter I entitled

“The Lawyer and Society” of the CPR, a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. Conduct in this case is not
limited to conduct exhibited in the performance
of professional duties.

Hence, due to his actions, Atty. Amante is

suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.