Ramos V Imbang

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6788 August 23, 2007
(Formerly, CBD 382)
DIANA RAMOS, Complainant,
vs.
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 ₱8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for
₱5,000 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 ₱350.
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.10Notwithstanding 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 ₱5,000 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 ₱5,000 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 ₱5,000 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 ₱5,000 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 ₱5,000 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.26Respondent'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.321avvphi1
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 ₱5,000 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 ₱5,000 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.

Ramos V Imbang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramos V Imbang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramos V Imbang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Recommendation of the IBP

The Court's Ruling

You might also like