View full case

VIDAYLIN YAMON-LEACH v. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA

FACTS:

Complainant Vidaylin Yamon-Leach filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Arturo B. Astorga. Complainant alleged that Atty. Astorga urged her to buy a beach-front property and she entrusted him with the downpayment and balance for the property. When she reviewed the deed of sale, she discovered several irregularities and confronted Atty. Astorga about them. Atty. Astorga requested additional funds but it was later discovered that the sellers' signatures were forged and the property was not owned by the alleged seller. Atty. Astorga admitted using the money but failed to pay back the complainant.

The case involves a complaint against Atty. Astorga for his failure to comply with the court's orders. Atty. Astorga made promises to pay but failed to fulfill them and repeatedly ignored the court's orders to file his comment. The court noted his disrespect to the judicial institution and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Garcia represented the petitioner in a labor case. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, but the respondent company failed to comply. Atty. Garcia failed to comply with the court's orders and offer an explanation for his failure to do so. The court also noted that Atty. Garcia unduly delayed the case and impeded the execution of judgment. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed a complaint against him for his failure to comply with the standards of the legal profession.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent lawyer is guilty of violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 12.03, and 12.04, Canon 12.

  2. Whether the respondent lawyer should be disbarred for his deceitful conduct, dishonesty, abuse of trust, misappropriation of funds, and violation of his lawyer's oath.

  3. Whether the respondent lawyer should be disbarred for his willful disobedience of the lawful order of the court.

  4. Whether the actions of the respondent, specifically in connection with the execution of the "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase," fall within the concept of unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.

  5. Whether the respondent's failure to comply with the directives of the court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) warrants disciplinary action.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent lawyer is guilty of violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 12.03, and 12.04, Canon 12.

  2. Yes, the respondent lawyer should be disbarred. The Court held that the respondent's deceitful conduct, dishonesty, abuse of trust, and misappropriation of funds constitute malfeasance and reveal a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the practice of law but also for maintaining membership in the Philippine Bar. Furthermore, the respondent's actions are in violation of several grounds for disbarment or suspension stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that lawyers must always exhibit probity and moral fiber.

  3. Yes, the respondent lawyer should be disbarred for willfully disobeying the lawful order of the court. The Court stated that it previously imposed the penalty of disbarment on lawyers who willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of the court.

  4. The Court found that the actions of the respondent, in connection with the execution of the "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase," constitute unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. These actions violate Article 19 of the Civil Code, disregard Section 63 of the Land Registration Act, and reflect bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit on the respondent's part.

  5. The Court also held that the respondent's failure to comply with the directives of the court and the IBP warrants disciplinary action. Considering the respondent's previous infraction and his manipulative and dishonest behavior, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law is a privilege that is given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

  • Lawyers have a duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

  • Lawyers should not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes.

  • Lawyers should exert every effort to submit pleadings, memoranda, or briefs within the given period and offer an explanation for any failure to do so.

  • Willful disobedience of court orders and deliberate and manipulating acts that unreasonably delay court action can be sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment.

  • Lawyers should act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

  • Lawyers should obey the laws, do no falsehood, and conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, probity, fairness, and straightforwardness.

  • Lawyers should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude, and it includes acts contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals.

  • Good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law but is also an essential requirement for maintaining membership in the Philippine Bar.

  • Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates several grounds for disbarment or suspension of lawyers, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, and willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

  • The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are to protect the public, foster public confidence in the Bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.

  • Disbarment may be imposed on lawyers who fail to account for, misappropriate, or mishandle funds received from their clients.

  • Disbarment may also be imposed on lawyers who willfully disobey lawful orders of the court.

  • Under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is mandated to obey the laws of the land, promote respect for law and legal processes, and not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and when an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of clients and the public, the Court has the duty to withdraw such privilege.