[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
321 views2 pages

Tan Vs Gumba

Tomas Tan Jr. filed a complaint against attorney Haide Gumba with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Tan had lent Gumba 350,000 pesos, secured by Gumba's father's property. However, Gumba defaulted on the loan and failed to pay despite demands. The court found Gumba engaged in deceitful and immoral conduct by using false documents and representations to obtain the loan, violating rules for attorney conduct. However, the court believed a six-month suspension, rather than disbarment, was sufficient discipline given the circumstances.

Uploaded by

kjsitjar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
321 views2 pages

Tan Vs Gumba

Tomas Tan Jr. filed a complaint against attorney Haide Gumba with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Tan had lent Gumba 350,000 pesos, secured by Gumba's father's property. However, Gumba defaulted on the loan and failed to pay despite demands. The court found Gumba engaged in deceitful and immoral conduct by using false documents and representations to obtain the loan, violating rules for attorney conduct. However, the court believed a six-month suspension, rather than disbarment, was sufficient discipline given the circumstances.

Uploaded by

kjsitjar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chapter I – The Lawyer and Society

Canon 1 - Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.

Case No. 1
Tomas P. Tan, Jr., complainant vs Atty. Haide V. Gumba, respondent
[A.C. No. 9000.October 5, 2011] [Ponente: Villarama, Jr., J.]

Facts:
 Tomas Tan Jr., a self-made businessman with a tailoring shop in Naga City, filed a
verified Complaint against Atty. Gumba before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 That respondent borrowed ₱350,000.00 from the complainant. Respondent assured
him that she would pay the principal plus 12% interest per annum after one year. She
likewise offered by way of security a 105-square-meter parcel of land located in Naga
City registered in her father’s name.
 Respondent showed complainant a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by
respondents parents, and verbally assured complainant that she was authorized to sell
or encumber the entire property.
 Complainant consulted one Atty. Raquel Payte and was assured that the documents
provided by respondent were valid. Thus, complainant agreed to lend money to
respondent.
 Respondent, however, defaulted on her loan obligation and failed to pay the same
despite complainants repeated demands.
 Complainant manifested that he had lent money before to other people albeit for
insignificant amounts, but this was the first time that he extended a loan to a lawyer
and it bore disastrous results. He submitted that respondent committed fraud and
deceit or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

Issue: WON a lawyer may be subject under disciplinary action for deception
when she acted in her private capacity and not as a lawyer.

Held: Yes
 Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity,
and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of
the court.
 Lawyers are similarly required, under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code, not to
engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
 Here, respondent’s actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending
money to her through the use of documents and false representations and taking
advantage of her education and complainant’s ignorance in legal matters. By her
misdeed, respondent has eroded not only complainant’s perception of the legal
profession but the public’s perception as well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct
for which she may be disciplined.
 However, that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline
respondent. It is worth stressing that the power to disbar must be exercised with
great caution. Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the bar. Considering the circumstances of this
case, the Court believes that a suspension of six months is sufficient. After all,
suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the
public and the legal profession

You might also like