View full case

DIANA RAMOS v. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG

FACTS:

In 1992, complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.

The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses but was never allowed by the respondent to enter the courtroom. He would always tell her to wait outside and then come out several hours later informing her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and respondent charged her P350 for each "appearance" in court.

After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious and personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Biñan and San Pedro, Laguna. She learned that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was actually employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

Respondent claimed that the complainant knew from the start that he was in the government service. He met the complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) and was assigned as counsel for the complainant's daughter.

In 1992, the complainant asked respondent to help her file an action for damages against the Jovellanoses. Because he was with the PAO and aware that the complainant was not an indigent, he declined. He advised the complainant to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a private practitioner, but Atty. Ungson did not accept the case. The complainant then asked respondent to keep the P5,000 she gave him for safekeeping.

A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an antedated receipt for the P5,000 because her daughter asked her to account for it. Respondent obliged and issued a receipt dated July 15, 1992.

In 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO and a few months later, the complainant asked him to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Respondent agreed but was unable to finalize the complaint as he lost contact with the complainant.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Jose R. Imbang violated the prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their salaries.

RULING:

  1. Violation of Prohibitions The Supreme Court found Atty. Jose R. Imbang guilty of violating the lawyer's oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he was disbarred from the practice of law and his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. He was also ordered to return the amount of P5,000 with legal interest from 1995 to the complainant.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

  2. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  3. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from a client.

  4. Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render.

  5. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Public officials and employees shall not engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their official function.

  6. Public Attorney's Office (PAO) Standards PAO lawyers are prohibited from accepting attorney's fees and must provide free legal assistance to indigent litigants.