EN BANC

[A.C. NO. 6788 : August 23, 2007]

DIANA RAMOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

This is a complaint for disbarment or suspension1 against Atty. Jose R. Imbang for multiple violations
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Complaint

In 1992, the 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.2 She gave
respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.3

The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly,
respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would
then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and
rescheduled.4 This happened six times and for each "appearance" in court, respondent charged
her P350.

After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired
about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Biñan and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked
to learn that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact
employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).5

Respondent's Defense

According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in the government service from the very
start. In fact, he first met the complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal
Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of Biñan, Laguna and was assigned as counsel for the
complainant's daughter.6

In 1992, the complainant requested him to help her file an action for damages against the
Jovellanoses.7 Because he was with the PAO and aware that the complainant was not an indigent, he
declined.8 Nevertheless, he advised the complainant to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a relative who was
a private practitioner.9 Atty. Ungson, however, did not accept the complainant's case as she was
unable to come up with the acceptance fee agreed upon.10 Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's refusal,
the complainant allegedly remained adamant. She insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid that she
"might spend" the cash on hand, the complainant asked respondent to keep the P5,000 while she
raised the balance of Atty. Ungson's acceptance fee.11

A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an antedated receipt because one of her
daughters asked her to account for the P5,000 she had previously given the respondent for
safekeeping.12 Because the complainant was a friend, he agreed and issued a receipt dated July 15,
1992.13

On April 15, 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO.14 A few months later or in September 1994,
the complainant again asked respondent to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was
now a private practitioner, respondent agreed to prepare the complaint. However, he was unable to
finalize it as he lost contact with the complainant.15

Recommendation of the IBP

Acting on the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) where the complaint was filed, received evidence from the parties. On November
22, 2004, the CBD submitted its report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors.16

The CBD noted that the receipt17 was issued on July 15, 1992 when respondent was still with the
PAO.18 It also noted that respondent described the complainant as a shrewd businesswoman and that
respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. For these reasons, the complainant would not have accepted
a spurious receipt nor would respondent have issued one. The CBD rejected respondent's claim that
he issued the receipt to accommodate a friend's request.19 It found respondent guilty of violating the
prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees other
than their salaries.20 The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from a client.

Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is
not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can
obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three years and ordered
him to immediately return to the complainant the amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by the
receipt.21

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the CBD that respondent violated
Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It, however, modified the
CBD's recommendation with regard to the restitution of P5,000 by imposing interest at the legal rate,
reckoned from 1995 or, in case of respondent's failure to return the total amount, an additional
suspension of six months.22

The Court's Ruling

We adopt the findings of the IBP with modifications.

Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity.23 More specifically, lawyers
in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject
to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost
fidelity to public service.24

Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this
reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials
and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared
unlawful:

xxx     xxx     xxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not:

xxx     xxx     xxx

(1) 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.25

Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote
themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices.

In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15,
1992 while he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship.26 Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant
and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the
complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still
a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession.

Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees. The PAO was created for the
purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants.27 Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III,
Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Sec. 14. xxx

The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to
indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.28

As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this
was inconsistent with the office's mission.29 Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting
legal fees other than his salary.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 1. - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
the law and legal processes.

Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law.30 This undertaking includes the observance of the above-
mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by respondent when he accepted the complainant's cases
and received attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, respondent's
acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the
complainant's counsel.

Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and accepting attorney's fees,
respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint
against the Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done), respondent also led the
complainant to believe that he really filed an action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear
that the cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his "appearance fees" for hearings
that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do
any falsehood.31

Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character required of all
lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened
with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice.32 
chanrobles virtual law library

There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of the complainant but
accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the complainant (such as
an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment obligation in favor of the client)33 nor
was it given to him for a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail
bond).34 Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a government lawyer, was not
entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept them.35

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found 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 is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of P5,000 with interest at the legal
rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days from receipt of this resolution.

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal records of respondent in the Office of the
Bar Confidant and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

*
 No part.

1
 Dated August 22, 1995.
2
 Rollo (Vol. I),  p. 1.

3
 Id., pp. 1, 4.

4
 Id., p. 1.

5
 Id., pp. 1-2.

6
 Id., p. 11.

7
 Id.

8
 Id.

9
 Id.

10
 Id., pp. 11-12.

11
 Id., p. 12.

12
 Id.

13
 Id., p. 4.

14
 Id., p. 12.

15
 Id., p. 13.

16
 Report and Recommendation of the CBD penned by Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco dated
November 22, 2004. Rollo (Vol. III), p. 3-14.

17
 Id. (Vol. I), p. 4. The document contains the text below:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

RECEIVED from Mrs. Diana Ramos the amount five thousand pesos (P5000.00) in connection with
her case entitled "DIANA RAMOS v. ROQUE & ELENITA JOVELLANOS for damages in the total amount
of P150,000.00.

Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna,

July 15, 1992.

(Sgd.) ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG

Rec'd. original:

(signature illegible)

18
 Id. (Vol. III), p. 11.

19
 Id., p. 11-12.

20
 Id., p. 12.

21
 Id. (Vol. III), p. 14.

22
 Id., p. 2.

23
 De Guzman v. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943, 26 January 2001, 350 SCRA 320, 324.

24
 Vitrolio v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, 1 April 2003, 400 SCRA 172, 179.

25
 Compare with Revised Rules on Civil Service, Rule XVIII, Sec. 12. The section provides:
[N]o officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession or be
connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written
permission from the head of the Department.

See also Lorenzana v. Fajardo, A.C. No. 5712, 29 June 2004, 462 SCRA 1.

26
 Amaya v. Tecson,  A.C. No. 5996, 7 February 2005, 450 SCRA 510, 515.

27
 Mandate of the PAO.

28
 See  RA 9407, Sec. 2.

29
 The mission of the PAO is:

"To provide indigent litigants free access to courts, judicial and quasi-judicial agencies by rendering
legal assistance in consonance with the constitutional mandate that 'free access to court shall not be
denied by reason of poverty.'"

30
 Lawyer's Oath. See also Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20(a).

31
 Lawyer's Oath. See also Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

32
 Supra note 24 at 180.

33
 See Manalang v. Angeles, A.C. No. 1558, 10 March 2003, 398 SCRA 687.

34
 See Businos v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349, 22 December 1997, 283 SCRA 407.

35
 Civil Code, Art. 2154. The article provides:

Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right to demand it and it was unduly delivered
through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.

Also  Civil Code, Art. 2159. The article provides:

Art. 2159. Whoever in bad faith accepts an undue payment shall pay legal interest if a sum of money
is involved, or shall be liable for fruits received which should have been received if the thing produces
fruits.

He shall furthermore be answerable for any loss or impairment of the thing from any cause, and for
damages to the person who delivered the thing, until it is recovered.