CELINA F. ANDRADA VERSUS ATTY.

RODRIGO CERA

When a lawyer takes a case, he covenants that he will exercise due

diligence in protecting his client’s rights.

The respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer when he

unlawfully withheld the complainant’s money; The respondent’s
restitution cannot serve to mitigate his administrative liability as he
returned the complainant’s money not voluntarily but for fear of
possible criminal liability.

FACTS:

Sometime 2009, Celina F. Andrada (Andrada) engaged the

services of Atty. Rodrigo Cera (Cera) to represent her in an annulment of
marriage case. Copies of the birth certificates of the children of Andrada,
as issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO), were needed for the
filing of the case. Said certificates were however not filed with NSO since
Andrada’s husband failed to completely accomplish the same. Hence,
Andrada gave Cera P3,000.00 to process with the NSO the registration
and issuance of the certificates. An additional P10,000.00 was given to
Cera for the conduct of the psychological examination on Cera and her
children relative to the case. Upon follow up in 2010, Andrada was asked
by the NSO to produce the receipts. She then requested the same from
Cera but Cera failed to produce the same. Andrada also learned from the
NSO that no payment was made. On May 29, 2011, Andrada demanded
for the surrender of the receipt and the return of the P10,000.00. Despite
receipt of the demand on May 30, 2011, Cera did not heed the demand.

On June 7, 2011, Andrada filed an administrative complaint

before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD). IBP Investigating Commissioner found Cera guilty
of violating Canons 1 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) and recommended the imposition of three (3) years suspension
from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted his
findings but modified the recommended penalty to one (1) year.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cera violated Canon 1 of the CPR. 2. Whether or

not Cera violated Canon 16 of the CPR.
RULING:

Yes, Cera violated Canon 1. He did not exert effort on his client’s case,
lied to her and reneged on his obligations. His actions show negligence
and lack of zeal. He violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 due to his unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. In relation thereto, he also
violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 when he neglected the legal matter
entrusted to him. 2. Yes, he violated Canon 16. He misappropriated the
funds entrusted to him when he unlawfully withheld the same and when
he failed to use the same for the intended purposes, thus violating Canon
16 which holds a lawyer in trust of all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.03 of the same canon
was also violated when he failed to deliver the funds and property of
Andrada when due and upon demand.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Wherefore, respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera is

hereby suspended from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR. He is
warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.
DOLORES BELLEZA, complainant vs ATTY. ALLAN MACASA, respondent,
AC NO. 7815, July 23, 2009

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; The orders of the Commission on Bar Discipline

of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (as the investigating arm of the
Supreme Court in administrative cases against lawyers) are not mere
requests but directives which should be complied with promptly and
completely.

Respondent’s unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the CBD was

not only irresponsible but also constituted utter disrespect for the
judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct was unbecoming of a
lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is
expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an
officer of the court. Respondent should have known that the orders of
the CBD (as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases
against lawyers) were not mere requests but directives which should
have been complied with promptly and completely.
 
A lawyer’s failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the
prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client—it
may border on the criminal as it may constitute a prima facie case of
swindling or estafa.

A lawyer has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties as they
fall due or upon demand. His failure to return the client’s money upon
demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for
his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in
him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession
and deserves punishment. Indeed, it may border on the criminal as it
may constitute a prima facie case of swindling or estafa.

Unjust Enrichment; Solutio Indebiti; A lawyer who does not render legal
services is not entitled to attorney’s fees, otherwise, not only would he
be unjustly enriched at the expense of the client, he would also be
rewarded for his negligence and irresponsibility.

FACTS:

On November 10, 2004, Complainant went to see respondent on

referral to their mutual friend, Joe Chua, and the complainant wanted to
avail of the services of Atty. Macasa, for his son, Francis John Belleza,
which was arrested in pursuance of a violation of Republic Act 9165.
Atty. Macasa agreed to handle the case for the amount of P30,000. On the
following day, the complainant made a partial payment, in the amount of
P15,000, thru their mutual friend, Chua, she gave him an additional
P10,000 and the balance of P5,000 was given on November 18, 2004. It
was made with no accompanying receipts.

On November 21, 2004, Respondent rececived , P18,000 for

posting a bond for the child of the complainant, however the respondent
lawyer failed to file the same with the court, without notice to the
complainant of such instance. Upon checking of the latter, it was shown
no payment was made, and she demanded the return of the said amount
of money. However, to no avail, no money was return to the complainant.
Also, no legal services was rendered by the said lawyer, which
prejudiced the right of the Son of the complainant to due process, right to
counsel and the right to bail.

In lieu of the said circumstances, the complainant filed a verified

complaint for disbarment against the respondent with the Negros
Occidental chapter of the Integrated bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Numerous extensions were filed by the respondent lawyer, but
nonetheless the latter failed to contradict with plausible explanations as
to the said innuendo initiated by the complainant. All he said that it was
groundless, baseless and malicious.

IBP-Negros Occidental, transmitted the said transcripts to

Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) for appropriate action. The CBD
found the said lawyer guilty and he lacked good moral character and that
he was unfit and unworthy of the privileges conferred by law on him as a
member of the bar. The CBD recommended a suspension of six months
with a stern warning if such act would be repeated. The Court affirmed
with the decision of CBD however the penalties imposed is amended and
modified.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Atty. Macasa, violated the fiduciary trust of

the complainant-client.
RULING:

Yes, Atty. Macasa is indeed guilty of the violation of numerous

provisions of the Code of professional responsibility, including the
fiduciary trust of the clients with their lawyers. Under Canon 16, A
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of the client that
may come into his position. The lawyer is thereby given a fiduciary duty
to appropriate the said money of the client, to whatever purpose it may
have been intended, if not used for that purpose, the lawyer is thereby
bound by their fiduciary duty to return the said money to the client.
 
Furthermore, under rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or from the client. Thereby
payments made, or money or property, must be accounted for, as such in
the case at bar, no receipts were given, and in lieu of the attorney’s fees
given in the amount of P30,000, no legal service rendered in exchange of
such amount. As determined by the Court, Requisite for collection of
Attorney’s fees should be present, first; 1.) The existence of an attorney-
client relationship and secondly, the rendition by the lawyer of services
to the client.

FALLO; Wherefore Atty. Allan Macasas is hereby found guilty

not only of dishonesty but also of professional misconduct for
prejudicing Francis John’ right to counsel and bail. Also hereby violating
Canons 1, 17,18,19 and Rule 12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 and is
thereby DISBARRED from the pratice of law effective immediately. Also
Atty. Macasas is hereby ordered to return Respondent is hereby
ORDERED to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the amounts of
P30,000and P18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is further
DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within
ten days from payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminal
prosecution.
 Cordon vs Balicanta
AC No. 2797 October 4, 2002

Code of Professional Responsibility; Deceitful Conduct; A lawyer is

forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as

his duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden
to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. If the
practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic
ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and
principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to
them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of
legal learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality,
not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal
career, in order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive and
honored fraternity.

Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character.
Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it
is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This
must be so because “vast interests are committed to his care; he is the
recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client’s
property, reputation, his life, his all.”

Attorney-Client Relationship; Professional Misconduct; Lawyers are

bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on
behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional
misconduct.

Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer “to hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.” He is bound “to account for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client.” The relation between an attorney and
his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are bound to
promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of
their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
FACTS:

Complainant Rosaura Cordon filed an administrative complaint

for disbarment, docketed as Administrative Case No. 2797 against Atty.
Jesus Balicanta. Complainant and her daughter Rosemarie inherited 21
parcels of land located in Zamboanga City. Respondent Balicanta helped
her with the estate of her late husband, Felixberto Jaldon. Respondent
enticed the complainant and daughter to use the property as a
commercial complex and to organize a corporation to develop it .
However, using a spurious board resolution of the corporation as
Respondent’s capacity as Chairman of the Board, President, General
Manager and Treasurer, contracted a loan from the Land Bank of the
Philippines. Four years from time of debt, respondent was unable to pay
even a single installment and worse, he sold the mortgage properties
through the corporations right to redeem it to a certain Jammang
through a fake board resolution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Balicanta should be disbarred

HELD:

Balicanta should be disbarred. Good moral character is a

requirement upon admission to the bar and throughout their legal
career. The respondent perpetrated a massive fraud to the complainant
by intentionally use the corporate veil to do fraudulent conduct. It is
clearly against the Code of Professional Responsibility which is his duty
to society mandated upon his exercising the privilege to practice law.
 MYRNA M. DEVEZA v. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO,
AC. No. 9574, 2016-06-21

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that
they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only
legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. Because of their important role in the society, the Court
shall not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for any conduct that is wanting
in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor, whether such conduct
was committed in their professional or in private capacity.

Code of Professional Responsibility; Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility (CPR) proscribes a lawyer from engaging in
any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates

all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same code proscribes a lawyer from
engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. They
should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the legal profession.

Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court and
IBP-CBD to file his comment and position paper and to appear in the
mandatory conference despite due notice. His continued defiance of the
orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous
affront on the court’s authority which cannot be tolerated. Atty. Del
Prado should bear in mind that he is a lawyer and an officer of the court
who is duty-bound to obey and respect the court processes. He must
acknowledge, at all times, the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in
deference to their authority over him as a member of the bar.

FACTS:

In February 2003, Atty. Alexander del Prado bought my lot located at No.
3242 Malvar St., Brgy. Pagasa, Camarin, Caloocan City. To evidence the
said sale, we executed a Contract to Sell. Atty. Del Prado took all the
copies of the Contract to Sell on the pretext that he will have the
document notarized but he never gave me a copy of the said document.
Atty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation to pay me the purchase price
of the said lot by leaving a balance of P565.950.00.

When I sent him a demand letter for the payment of his obligation
and/or rescission of sale, he called me and told me that he will meet me
and my son at Jollibee, Muñoz Branch
Atty. Del Prado never paid us the balance of the purchase price for the lot
he bought from us.

[Worst], Atty. Del Prado used the Deed of Absolute Sale that he made us
sign by means of fraud as evidence in the civil case I filed against him for
rescission of contract [that misled] the court. In a Resolution, dated
September 3, 2012, the Court required Atty. Del Prado to comment on
the complaint-affidavit but failed to do so. Pursuant to the Court
Resolution,[4] dated November 18, 2013, the complaint was referred to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

On June 18, 2014, the case was set for mandatory conference but only
the counsel of complainant appeared. Despite due notice, Atty. Del Prado
did not attend the mandatory conference.

ISSUES:

Dishonesty and for acts unbecoming a lawyer.

RULING:

The IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation, stated that Atty. Del
Prado's failure to answer the complaint despite several notices and his
continuous absence in the scheduled hearings shows his flouting
resistance to the lawful... orders of the court and illustrates his
despiciency for his oath of office as a lawyer. The IBP-CBD recommended
that Atty. Del Prado be meted the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law and as a member of the bar for a period of two (2) years.
In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-014,[6] dated January 30, 2015,
the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the
report and recommendation of the CBD and suspended Atty. Del Prado
from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years.

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The
practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that they
possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only
legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,... integrity
and fair dealing.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates

all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same code proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

They should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree
the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of the legal profession. Atty. Del Prado should bear in mind
that he is a lawyer and an officer of the court who is duty bound to obey
and respect the court processes. He must acknowledge, at all times,... the
orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to their authority over
him as a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado GUILTY of

violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for Five (5) years effective upon receipt of this... decision with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with
more severely.

Principles:

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who show that
they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only
legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,... integrity
and fair dealing.
 JULIETA B. NARAG VS. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG
A. C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998

Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of

law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.

Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the

practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may
be suspended or disbarred.

Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful,

flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct
must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

Same; Same; Same; A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not
only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of
mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the
public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol that, “as officers of the court,

lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also
be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance
with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a
member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain
from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

FACTS:

Mrs. Julieta Narag, spouse of Atty. Dominador Narag, filed an

administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband alleging
that the latter courted one of his students named Gina Espita and they
then maintained an illicit relationship known in various circles in the
community.
 
Her husband abandoned his family to live with Ms. Espita, in utterly
scandalous circumstances. The case was referred to the IBP for
investigation. Later on, the complainant sought for the dismissal of the
administrative complaint and retracted all her previous allegations. 
 
The case took an unexpected turn when, the Court received another
letter from the complainant, with her seven children as co-signatories,
again appealing for the disbarment of her husband. She explained that
she had earlier dropped the case against him because of his husband’s
continuous threats against her.
 
The investigating officer submitted his report, recommending the
indefinite suspension of Atty. Narag from the practice of law. However,
the IBP imposed the penalty of disbarment.
 
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Narag should be disbarred from practice of law.

 
HELD:

The Court found that the conduct of respondent warrants the imposition
of the penalty of disbarment.
 
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of
law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence,
when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred.
 
Respondent Narag is accused of gross immorality for abandoning his
family in order to live with Gina Espita. On the strength of the testimony
of her witnesses, the complainant was able to establish that respondent
abandoned his family and lived with another woman. Further, the
complainant presented as evidence the love letters that respondent had
sent to Gina. In these letters, respondent clearly manifested his love for
Gina and her two children, whom he acknowledged as his own.
 
In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that respondent had breached the high and
exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. As held
in Maligsa vs. Cabanting, "a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court."
 ARNOLD PACAO v. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS,
AC. No. 11246, 2016-06-14

Attorneys; Disbarment; The Supreme Court (SC) does not hesitate to

impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a
repeat offender.

Despite her two (2) prior suspensions, still, Atty. Limos is once again
demonstrating to this Court that not only is she unfit to stay in the legal
profession for her deceitful conduct but is also remiss in following the
dictates of the Court, which has supervision over her. Atty. Limos’
unwarranted obstinacy is a great insolence to the Court which cannot be
tolerated. The present case comes clearly under the grounds given in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court, however,
does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty
party has become a repeat offender. Considering the serious nature of
the instant offense and in light of Atty. Limos’ prior misconduct which
grossly degrades the legal profession, the imposition of the ultimate
penalty of disbarment is warranted.

In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Limos, the Court is

aware that the power to disbar is one to be exercised with great caution
and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as a legal professional and as an officer of
the Court. However, Atty. Limos’ recalcitrant attitude and unwillingness
to heed with the Court’s warning, which is deemed to be an affront to the
Court’s authority over members of the Bar, warrant an utmost
disciplinary sanction from this Court. Her repeated desecration of her
ethical commitments proved herself to be unfit to remain in the legal
profession. Worse, she remains apathetic to the need to reform herself.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State
upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.” “Of all
classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the
laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to
repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to
ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and
office, and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous
elements of the body politic.
FACTS:

Sometime in March 2008, complainant's wife Mariadel Pacao,

former vault custodian of BHF Pawnshop (BHF) branch in Mandaluyong
City, was charged with qualified theft by BHF. Thereafter, the case was
filed... before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City. To buy
peace, the complainant-initiated negotiation with BHF, through Atty.
Limos, for a possible settlement. A meeting was then arranged between
the complainant and Atty. Limos, where the latter represented that she
was duly authorized by BHF. negotiations,... Atty. Limos relayed that BHF
is demanding the sum of P530,000.00 to be paid in full or by
installments. Further negotiation led to an agreement whereby the
complainant would pay an initial amount of P200,000.00 to be entrusted
to Atty. Limos, who will then deliver to the... complainant a signed
affidavit of desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to
approve compromise agreement for filing with the court.

On October 29, 2009, the complainant gave the initial amount of

P200,000.00 to Atty. Limos, who in turn, signed an Acknowledgment
Receipt recognizing her undertakings as counsel of BHF. However, Atty.
Limos failed to meet the terms of their agreement.
Thereafter, in June 2010, the complainant met BHF's representative,
Camille Bonifacio, who informed him that Atty. Limos was no longer
BHF's counsel and was not authorized to negotiate any settlement nor
receive any money in behalf of BHF.

This prompted the complainant to send a demand letter to Atty.

Limos to return the P200,000.00 initial settlement payment, but the
latter failed and refused to do so. The complainant then filed a
disbarment case against Atty. Limos before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) - Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP-CBD
required Atty. Limos to file an answer but she did not file any responsive
pleading.

On May 5, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner... found enough

evidence on record to prove that Atty. Limos committed fraud and
practiced deceit on the complainant to the latter's... prejudice by
concealing or omitting to disclose the material fact that she no longer
had the authority to negotiate and conclude a settlement for and on
behalf of BHF, nor was authorized to receive the P200,000.00 from the
complainant.
 On March 8, 2016, the IBP transmitted the notice of the
resolution and the case records to the Court for final action pursuant to
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Once again, for the third time, Atty. Limos is facing an

administrative case before this Court for receiving the amount of
P200,000.00 from the complainant purportedly for a possible amicable
settlement with her client BHF."[T]he practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess,
and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with... conditions."

ISSUES:

Whether or not the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a

sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Limos from the practice of law?

RULING:

To begin with, the Court notes that this is not the first time that
Atty. Limos is facing an administrative case, for she had already been
twice suspended from the practice of law, by this Court, for three months
each in Villaflores v. Atty. Limos[15] and Wilkie v. Atty. Limos. Once
again, for the third time, Atty. Limos is facing an administrative case
before this Court for receiving the amount of P200,000.00 from the
complainant purportedly for a possible amicable settlement with her
client BHF.

Her blunder is compounded by the fact that she did not turn
over the money to BHF, nor did she return the same to the complainant,...
despite due demand. Furthermore, she even tried to get the next
installment knowing fully well that she was not authorized to enter into
settlement negotiations with the complainant as her engagement as
counsel of BHF had already ceased. The fact that this is Atty. Limos' third
transgression exacerbates her offense.

It is not too farfetched for this Court to conclude that from the
very beginning, Atty. Limos had... planned to employ deceit on the
complainant to get hold of a sum of money. Such a conduct is
unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the Bar. The
present case comes clearly under the grounds given in Section 27,[18]
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court, however, does not
hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has
become a repeat offender. Considering the... serious nature of the instant
offense and in light of Atty. Limos' prior misconduct which grossly
degrades the legal profession, the imposition of the ultimate penalty of
disbarment is warranted. Indeed, Atty. Limos has disgraced the legal
profession. The facts and evidence obtaining in this case definitely
establish her failure to live up to her duties as a lawyer in accordance
with the strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby making her
unworthy to continue as a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos, having violated the Code

of Professional Responsibility by committing grave misconduct and
willful insubordination, is DISBARRED and her name ordered STRICKEN
OFF the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the records of Atty.

Sinamar Limos. Further, let other copies be served on the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator, which is
directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their...
information and guidance. This Decision is immediately executory.

Principles:

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the

State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess,
the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with... conditions.