Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions > [A.M.NO. 07-4-11 SC : August 05, 2008] RE INFORMATION ON ATTY. JAIME VELASCO LOPEZ.:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 5, 2008

�A.M.NO. 07-4-11 SC � RE INFORMATION ON ATTY. JAIME VELASCO LOPEZ.

In a letter dated April 3, 2007 addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Atty. Myrna S. Feliciano^[1] forwarded a report on Atty. Jaime V. Lopez who was disbarred by the State Bar of California on July 2, 2000 in Case No. 96-0-4592. The report read:

[Atty.] Lopez misappropriated $25,000 in client funds received as settlement of a personal injury case. Although he deposited the funds in his client trust account, he allowed the balance to fall to a negative amount.

On behalf of three clients, he wrote checks against insufficient funds to medical providers.

The State Bar Court found that Lopez failed to notify a client of his receipt of client funds, failed to maintain the funds in his client trust account, misappropriated client funds, wrote bad checks and committed acts of moral turpitude. He also did not maintain a current address with the State Bar.

In recommending Lopez� disbarment, Judge Carlos Velarde noted that his actions were connected to the practice of law and �it is this type of conduct which particularly undermines the public�s confidence in the legal profession and which this court does not take lightly.�

In a resolution dated April 17, 2007, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for recommendation and appropriate action.

In a memorandum dated July 14, 2008 Atty. Ma. Crisrtina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, stated that while the disbarment of Atty. Lopez from State Bar of California may be used as a ground for disciplinary actions against him, it does not automatically entail his disbarment from the Philippine bar. Disbarment proceedings should first be instituted against him in this jurisdiction.

The observations of the Bar Confidant are well-taken.

The issue of whether a member of the Philippine bar, who is concomitantly an attorney in a foreign jurisdiction and was suspended from the practice of law in said foreign jurisdiction, may be sanctioned as a member of the Philippine bar for the same infraction (in the foreign jurisdiction) is not new. We have already addressed this in In Re Suspension From the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera^[2] and Velez v. De Vera.^[3]

The power of this Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in a foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of court:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. � A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney be the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, of for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.

A judgment of suspension or disbarment against a member of the Philippine bar in a foreign jurisdiction, although it does not ipso facto result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines, nevertheless constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical behavior as a lawyer.

Atty. Lopez violated Canon 164^[4] and Rules 16.01,5^[5] 16.026^[6] and 16.03^[7] of the Code of Professional Responsibility in failing to notify a client of his receipt of funds, failing to maintain the funds in his client�s trust account and misappropriating said funds. He also transgressed Canon 1^[8] and Rule 1.01^[9] of the Code of Professional Responsibility by misappropriating his client�s funs and issuing bad checks. His acts violated the ethics of the Philippine legal profession. He is prima facie liable for violation of Canon 7^[10] and Rule 7.03 ^[11] of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Nonetheless, prima facie evidence of Professional misconduct does not constitute sufficient warranting the disbarment or suspension of a lawyer. In disciplinary

proceedings against a member of the bar, clearly preponderant evidence is required to establish liability.^[12]

More importantly, due process and fairness demand that Atty. Lopez be given the opportunity to defend himself and to present evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.^[13] Said rule mandates that a respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges against him.^[14] Thus, whether Atty. Lopez� acts violated the ethical standards of the Philippine bar and constituted grounds for his disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction must still be determined and established in a proper proceeding in which he may adduce evidence on his behalf.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Myrna S. Feliciano�s report against Atty. Jaime V. Lopez is hereby converted into an administrative case for Atty. Lopez�s disbarment or suspension. Atty. Lopez is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be suspended or disbarred for certain ethical transgression which caused his disbarment from the State

Bar of California, within fifteen days from receipt of this resolution. He is further required to submit a certified true copy of the July 2, 2000 decision of the State Bar of California in Case No. 96-0-4592�

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Consultant in the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office of the Supreme Court

^[2] B.M. No. 793, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 417.

^[3] A.C. No. 6697, 25 July 2007, 496 SCRA 345.

^[4] CANON 16 � A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.

^[5] Rule 16.01 � A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

^[6] Rule 16.02 � A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

^[7] Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds the property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. (emphasis supplied)

^[8] CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

^[9] Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest immoral or deceitful conduct.

^[10] CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied)

^[11] Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, now shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

^[12] See Pimental Jr. v. Llorente, 393 Phil. 544 (2000).

^[13] In Re Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera, supra.

^[14] Id.