A.C. No. 5315 – 393 Phil. 188 – Legal Ethics – Duties of a lawyer – The Lawyer and his client – Misappropriation of Client’s Funds

In 1997, Modesto Cunanan’s son, Andrew Philip Cunanan, died in the United States. Modesto, an American, needed to settle his immigration case with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation before he may be allowed to fly to the USA to take care of his son’s funeral. Modesto hired the services of Atty. Rex Rimorin. Modesto’s son’s death in the USA was sensational and ABS-CBN offered Php200,000.00 to Modesto for an exclusive interview. Modesto agreed as he needed money to fly to the USA.

However, it was Rimorin who received the money for Modesto. Rimorin received a total of Php200,000.00 from ABS-CBN. He was only able to deliver Php30,000.00 to Modesto and could not account for the rest. Modesto then sued Rimorin for estafa and for disbarment. His estafa case was dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rimorin should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. During the pendency of this administrative case, Rimorin failed to make an accounting which shows his lack of interest to return Modesto’s money.

The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require that Rimorin should promptly account for the said funds which he received and held for the benefit of Modesto. That is because those funds properly belong to the client. The client has the right to know how the funds were applied, used or disbursed by his counsel. A lawyer should always keep in mind the welfare and interest of his client.

Rimorin was suspended for one year.

Read full text.

The post Modesto Cunanan vs Rex Rimorin appeared first on Uber Digests.

A.C. No. 5081 – 447 Phil. 549 – 399 SCRA 422 – Legal Ethics – Lawyers committing fraud – A lawyer should not engage in deceitful conduct

In 1991, Atty. Rex Rimorin had a Special Power of Attorney notarized. The SPA made it appear that Emiliana Eustaquio et al. authorized Rimorin to sell a property in Baguio. By reason of the SPA, Rimorin was able to sell the property to a certain So Hu in 1991. In 1998, So hu sold the same property to Danilo De Vera.

In 1999, Eustaquio et al. discovered what Rimorin did. They filed a disciplinary action against Rimorin.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rimorin should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

Rimorin’s deceitful conduct makes him less than worthy of his continued practice of law. A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers. Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but the duty of the Court which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar to withdraw the privilege.

Rimorin was suspended for five years.

Read full text.

The post Emiliana Eustaquio et al. vs Rex Rimorin appeared first on Uber Digests.

A.C. No. 6792 – 515 Phil. 635 – 480 SCRA 1 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law – Disbarment; Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude – Homicide may or may not be a crime involving moral turpitude

Robert Soriano, a taxi driver, and Atty. Manuel Dizon had a traffic altercation. Dizon brought out a firearm and shot Soriano. Thereafter, he fled the scene. Due to a concerned citizen, Soriano received timely medical assistance and he survived. Soriano then filed a criminal case against Dizon. Dizon was convicted of frustrated homicide. Soriano then filed a disbarment case against Dizon.

ISSUE: Whether or not homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude.

HELD: It depends. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances.

In this case, it was shown that Dizon was the aggressor. When he was overtaken by Soriano, he got irked and he tailed Soriano’s taxi until he reached him. Dizon got out of his car and aggressively confronted Soriano. Soriano had to defend himself. Dizon returned to his car, took his gun and shot Soriano while his back was against him.

The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, Dizon revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted like a god on the road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness, which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a lawyer. In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant, we see not the persistence of a person who has been grievously wronged, but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to exact revenge.

It is also glaringly clear that Dizon seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. We remind him that, both in his attorney’s oath and in the Code of Professional Responsibility, he bound himself to “obey the laws of the land.”

Manuel Dizon was disbarred.

Read full text.

The post Roberto Soriano vs Atty. Manuel Dizon appeared first on Uber Digests.