ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 107660. January 2, 1995 : RAMON C. LOZON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 : HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 : LEOUEL SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 : GEORGE I. RIVERA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 : ROLANDO B. ANGELES vs. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 : LESLIE W. ESPINO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 : EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 : ROLITO T. GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 : FEM'S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. vs. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 : MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 : ALFREDO B. FELIX vs. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 : TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO vs. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 : CITIBANK, N.A. vs. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 : AGRIPINO S. BELEN vs. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 : ETERIA T. TAN vs. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 : ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 : SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 : MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 : COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 : REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 : JAIME C. DACANAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 : MANUEL M. ALLEJE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 : CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 : ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 : SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO vs. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 : JACINTO MAPPALA vs. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 : RAUL H. SESBRENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 : NILO MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 : RAMON ABAD vs. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 : DJUMANTAN vs. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 : JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107660 January 2, 1995 - RAMON C. LOZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 - HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 - LEOUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 - GEORGE I. RIVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 - ROLANDO B. ANGELES v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 - LESLIE W. ESPINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 - EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 - ROLITO T. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 - MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 - ALFREDO B. FELIX v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 - TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO v. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 - CITIBANK, N.A. v. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 - AGRIPINO S. BELEN v. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 - ETERIA T. TAN v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 - SALLY D. BONGALONTA v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 - MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 - POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 - JAIME C. DACANAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 - MANUEL M. ALLEJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 - CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 - ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 - SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO v. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 - JACINTO MAPPALA v. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 - NILO MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 - ALFREDO S. LIM v. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 - RAMON ABAD v. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 - DJUMANTAN v. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 - JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Case No. 1647   January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [Adm. Case No. 1647. January 20, 1995.]

    ELENA VDA. DE ECO, Complainant, v. ATTORNEY BENJAMIN RAMIREZ, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT; LIABILITY OF AN ATTORNEY FOR ANY DECEIT, MALPRACTICE OR OTHER GROSS MISCONDUCT IN HIS OFFICE; CASE AT BAR. — By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it appear in a document on January 15, 1976 that she received P4,880.00 or more than what she actually received. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondent’s act of defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her husband’s death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable and should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade himself as a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession to which he belongs.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SUSPENSION, PROPER PENALTY IN CASE AT BAR. — For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year from receipt of this Resolution.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report of Investigating Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas finding respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez guilty of having committed acts not befitting a member of the bar. 1 The Board of Governors also increased the recommended penalty from six (6) months to one year suspension.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Elena Vda. de Eco, an illiterate from Sorsogon, filed a complaint against respondent Benjamin Ramirez on May 17, 1976. Atty. Ramirez was then counsel for Communications Insurance Co., Inc.

    On January 1966, Vda. de Eco filed suit against the Hapseng Bakery and Grocery and its insurer, Communications Insurance Co., Inc. for the death of her husband while in the employ of the bakery. 2

    The Worker’s Compensation Commission Office at Naga rendered a decision on December 19, 1975. Said decision was forwarded to the Workmen’s Compensation for review.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    According to complainant Vda. de Eco’s affidavit, sometime January 1976, she went to the office of Communications Insurance Co., Inc. to follow up the case. complainant and her daughter Beata Elona were met by respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez, who asked them to wait a while. Afterward, he told them that the insurance company was not liable for her husband’s death but the company will help by giving them "P650.00 as limos." He asked her to get a residence certificate in order for her to receive the money only after she thumbmarked a blank piece of paper and her daughter signed as witness.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

    On January 29, 1976, the Workmen’s Commission decided the case in favor of Vda. de Eco and ordered the Hapseng Bakery and the Communications Insurance Co. jointly and severally to pay the sum of P4,880.00.

    After a writ of execution was issued by the commission, complainant along with a deputy sheriff from Manila went to the office of Communications Insurance Co., Inc. They were asked to call again since Atty. Benjamin Ramirez, who had the papers relevant to the case, was out. On April 28, 1976, they again went to see Atty. Ramirez. This time the lawyer informed them that the sum of P4,880.00 was already paid to Vda. de Eco on January 15, 1976.

    In his answer, respondent lawyer admitted having met Vda. de Eco at his office in January 1976 but denied that he gave her only P650.00. He claims that complainant signed a receipt on January 15, 1976 for P4,880.00 and not a blank piece of paper.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Both parties, therefore, admit the existence of a receipt prepared on January 15, 1976. The issue in this case is whether respondent Ramirez made it appear that complainant signed a receipt on January 15, 1976 for P4,880.00 as full payment for the complainant’s claim.

    If the complainant is right, then respondent lawyer had deceived her into signing a receipt for the Commission’s award without receiving the full amount.

    Since 1991 when the Integrated Bar of the Philippines commenced its investigation, the complainant failed to appear; nor could service of notices be made on her. The Investigating Commissioner however, pointed out in his report that under Rule 139-B, the IBP cannot dismiss outright a complainant against a member of the bar simply because the complainant has lost interest in the case, specially where prima facie evidence exists. 3 Moreover, respondent lawyer’s verified answer and admissions during hearings before the Investigating Commissioner constitute sufficient evidence for a just disposition of the case.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    After a careful study of the Investigating Commissioner’s report finding respondent lawyer guilty of acts not befitting a member of a bar, we find it to be thorough and in conformance with reason and the evidence presented. We, therefore, adopt the report’s findings.

    The commissioner held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "From the complaint and respondent’s very admissions in the answer, complainant could not have signed together with her daughter as witness for the full amount of P4,880.00 because that January 15, 1976 receipt could not have known or anticipated the award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission on January 29, 1976 against respondent’s company, Communications Insurance Co. Inc., for P4,880.00, not unless the insurance company or respondent were mind-readers or were forewarned of an adverse judgment which are both unlikely. In fact, complainant herself only discovered that the full amount of P4,880.00 was allegedly made to appear on the receipt when complainant went on April 26, 1976 to the Sheriff with regard to the writ of execution dated March 31, 1976 issued by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Respondent admits the documents, the dates, the amount awarded and the decision all pertaining to the Workmen’s Compensation Case, along with the writ of execution issued against the respondent’s insurance company.

    In the face of the admissions in the answer, it is difficult to believe respondent’s allegation that "on the contrary, complainant was made to thumbmark a duly accomplished document in the presence of her daughter, its contents were read and translated to her in Bicol, a dialect she fully understands, after which her daughter Beata Elona signed as a witness after receiving the full amount of P4,880.00 as death compensation of her late husband . . ." 4

    Furthermore, respondent’s failure to substantiate his claim of payment, by not presenting in evidence the actual receipts paid to complainant, true copies of the encashed check for P4,880.00 and a certain Manuel Liao of Communication Insurance Co., Inc., does not help his cause. 5

    Due to the absence of complainant, there is no evidence of the exact amount actually paid by the insurance company to her. Hence, no monetary award can be made in this regard.

    By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it appear in a document on January 15, 1976 that she received P4,880 or more than what she actually received.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondent’s act of defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her husband’s death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable and should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade himself as a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession to which he belongs.

    For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year from receipt of this Resolution.

    SO ORDERED.

    Feliciano, Bidin, Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Report of Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas, dated March 15, 1993; Resolution of IBP Board of Governors, Resolution No. XI-94-068 dated March 26, 1994.

    2. WCC Case No. 8065; Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Naga City.

    3. Section 5 of Rule 139-B reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

    4. Report of commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas, pp. 7-8, March 15, 1993.

    5. Report, p. 8.

    Adm. Case No. 1647   January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED