View full case

FELICITAS BERBANO v. ATTY. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

FACTS:

On March 11, 1999, Felicitas Berbano filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of Atty. Wenceslao Barcelona for malpractice, gross misconduct unbecoming a lawyer, dereliction of duty, and unjust enrichment. Complainant alleges that she is one of the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo, the owner of a 244-hectare lot being claimed by Filinvest Development Corporation in a case before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP).

Complainant states that Mr. Porfirio Daen, the attorney-in-fact appointed by the heirs, was arrested on January 26, 1999, on the basis of an expired warrant of arrest. As they needed a lawyer to secure Mr. Daen's release, they sought the assistance of Atty. Barcelona, recommended by their friend Naty Sibuya.

On the same day, Atty. Barcelona arrived at the Muntinlupa City Jail and met with Mr. Daen. Atty. Barcelona informed them that if they could produce the amount of P50,000.00, he would cause the release of Mr. Daen the following day. Unable to raise the full amount, they contributed P15,700.00 and handed it to Atty. Barcelona at Chowking Restaurant.

They arranged to meet Atty. Barcelona at Max' Restaurant the next day. They gave him a check for P24,000.00 and were informed that Atty. Barcelona had "fixed" the case with a justice of the Supreme Court.

Further attempts to meet Atty. Barcelona were unsuccessful, with him requesting an additional P5,000.00, which they failed to provide. It was later revealed that Atty. Barcelona had left for Mindanao on a private plane allegedly to attend peace talks with Muslims.

Complainant confronted Atty. Barcelona on February 18, 1999, and he promised to return the entire amount of P64,000.00. However, he failed to do so and did not return any of her calls thereafter.

Despite due notice and several hearing dates set, both parties failed to appear before the Investigating Commissioner. The Commissioner considered Atty. Barcelona in default, and complainant presented her evidence ex parte.

Commissioner Bautista submitted a Final Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Barcelona guilty of malpractice and serious breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He recommended disbarment and the return of the amount of P64,000.00 to the complainant. The IBP Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Bautista's findings but reduced the penalty to a six-year suspension from the practice of law. The Court disagreed with the IBP Board of Governors and upheld the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Bautista.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six years is sufficient for the respondent's misconduct.

  2. Whether the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law for collecting money from the complainant and the nephew of the detained person under false pretenses.

  3. Whether the respondent's previous misconduct should be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

  4. Whether or not a judge can be held administratively liable for rendering a decision contrary to prevailing jurisprudence.

  5. Whether or not the denial of due process in cases where the judge failed to conduct a hearing before imposing sanctions renders the administrative proceedings null and void.

RULING:

  1. The Court disagrees with the IBP Board of Governors' decision to reduce the penalty and upholds the recommendation of Commissioner Bautista. Under the established facts, respondent should not only be suspended but disbarred from the practice of law.

  2. The respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law for his gross misconduct in collecting money from the complainant and the nephew of the detained person by misrepresenting that he could secure the immediate release of the detainee through his alleged connection with a Justice of the Supreme Court.

  3. The respondent's previous misconduct, as evidenced by his suspension in another case, should be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

  4. Yes, a judge can be held administratively liable for rendering a decision contrary to prevailing jurisprudence. It is the clear duty of a judge to be knowledgeable of, and to apply, existing laws and jurisprudence in deciding cases. Failure to do so constitutes gross ignorance of the law, which is a ground for administrative liability.

  5. No, the denial of due process in cases where the judge failed to conduct a hearing before imposing sanctions does not render the administrative proceedings null and void. In administrative cases against judges, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. The failure to conduct a formal hearing is not fatal to the proceedings as long as the judge is given a fair chance to present his or her defense.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disbarment proceedings are neither purely civil nor purely criminal but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. The primary objective is to safeguard the administration of justice and protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court.

  • In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.

  • The non-presentation of corroborating evidence does not affect the case if the testimony of a single witness is trustworthy and reliable, except when required by law.

  • Lawyers are expected to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for law and legal processes, maintain the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, respect the courts and judicial officers, and hold in trust all money and properties of clients.

  • The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and their entrusted money. Taking money from a client under false pretenses and demeaning the legal profession is a serious breach of the code.

  • Lawyers are officers of the courts and have a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. They should not promote distrust in the administration of justice.

  • The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, including adherence to mental fitness, moral standards, and compliance with the rules of the legal profession.

  • The Supreme Court has the authority and duty to discipline its members and has the power to disbar lawyers for gross misconduct.

  • Misconduct by lawyers, including misrepresentation and the collection of money under false pretenses, erodes public confidence in the courts and cannot be tolerated.

  • Previous misconduct may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for a lawyer's misconduct.

  • It is the clear duty of a judge to be knowledgeable of, and to apply, existing laws and jurisprudence in deciding cases.

  • Gross ignorance of the law is a ground for administrative liability.

  • In administrative cases against judges, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.