September 1, 1933 is that "there being no evidence in the record establishing the relationship of
C.E. PIATT, Chief of Police of Manila, complainant, attorney and client between the respondent and the malefactors", and "the act
vs. complained of not having been committed in the exercise of his profession of
PERFECTO ABORDO, respondent
attorney-at-law", the acts he committed could not affect his status as
attorney-at-law and could not, therefore, constitute a ground for disciplinary
FACTS: action.
On February 19, 1932, Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine ISSUE:
Bar, accepted the offer of two individuals to sell him a quantity of opium, a
WON Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, should be
prohibited drug, and agreed to pay P1.50 per tin for the opium. On the
suspended.
afternoon of the same day, Abordo was picked up at the corner of Taft
Avenue extension and Vito Cruz in the City of Manila, by one of the RULING:
individuals who had made him the opium proposition, and was taken to Rizal
Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the grounds
Avenue Extension outside of the city limits where they found a number of
for the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer. Nevertheless, it is well settled
persons awaiting them in an automobile. A can was disclosed to Abordo as
that a member of the bar may be suspended or removed from his office as
containing opium, and believing that it was opium, he delivered to one
lawyer for other than statutory grounds. However, as a general rule, a court
Cabrales the amount of P600 in payment of the stuff. The can was loaded in
will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers for misconduct
the automobile which brought Abordo to the scene of the delivery, but in
alleged to be committed in his private capacity. The exception to the rule is
returning to Manila another automobile overtook them and the parties riding
that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in
therein, pretending to be constabulary soldiers, told Abordo to stop. Instead
his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
Abordo drew his revolver and commanding the driver of the car to turn into
professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy
Calle Vito Cruz was able to evade his pursuers and to arrive safely at his
of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
home in Pasay. Once in his home Abordo examined the contents of the can
and found it to contain fake opium and sand. Thereupon Abordo reported to In the case at bar, Atty. Abordo should be suspended because he
the Luneta Police Station of Manila that he had been robbed of P600. Two attempted to engage in an opium deal in direct contravention of the criminal
individuals were later arrested, charged with the crime of estafa, and law of the Philippine Island. He as a member of the bar he should sacredly
convicted. bound to uphold the laws. He violated the Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 which
provides “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
Abordo admits that he entered into the transaction detailed above,
deceitful conduct.” and also it is indicated in the Section 21 of the Code of
adding that "he is sincerely sorry for it and vows not to repeat". His defense
Civil Procedure enumerates the grounds for the suspension or disbarment Calis also failed to attend the hearings with the Commission on Bar
of a lawyer. Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) despite being issued
summons and being required to answer or comment on the complaint.
Therewith, the IBP recommended the disbarment of herein respondent.
A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999
MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, ISSUE:
vs.
Whether or not Atty. Dorotheo Calis is guilty of violation of Canon
ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS, Respondent. 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which thereby
constitutes his disbarment.
FACTS:
Sometime in November 1992, one Marilou Sebastian, herein RULING:
complainant, was referred to Atty. Dorotheo Calis, herein respondent, for the
Yes, Atty. Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of the
latter to process all the documents needed for the former to travel to the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a
United States of America with the consideration of P150,000.00. With the
privilege carrying with it the condition of continuous good moral character.
respondent’s promise to return the complainant’s money if there would be
The gross misconduct of a lawyer subjects him unfit to practice law. Canon
trouble with the documents for her travel. In 4 separate payments,
1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
complainant paid the entire consideration receiving, however, only 3 receipts
for the payments. Respondent, Calis, provided the complainant with spurious Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
documents which resulted for complainant to be detained in Changi Prisons immoral or deceitful conduct.
upon arrival in Singapore and thereafter, the complainant was deported back
In the case at bar, Calis guaranteed to secure all the necessary
to the Philippines.
documents for Sebastian’s travel to the United States with the promise to
Upon arrival in the Philippines, the respondent promised to secure return the money if anything goes wrong with her travel. Calis’s acts of
new travel documents for the complainant. However, the complainant opted giving the complainant spurious documents constitutes deception and
to demand for the return of her money. Calis made partial payments of unlawful conduct on his part. Adding to it is respondent’s refusal to honor the
15,000, 6000, and 5000 to the complainant but was unreachable when the summons of the IBP which reflects his unprofessional conduct. The court
complainant demanded for the rest of the payment.
views Calis’s conduct and continuance in service as a threat to the
administration of justice.
Therefore, Calis is deemed disbarred and is ordered to immediately
return the rest of the complainant’s money.
