Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~uprtmt <!Court
;fflanila
ENBANC
AMPARO BUENO,
Complainant,
Present:
SERENO, C.J,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
. PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,*
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,* and
LEONEN,JJ
-versus-
Promulgated:
ATTY. RAMON A. RANESES,
Respondent.
r-r
.
1~
X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----X
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment 1 against Atty.
Ramon Rafieses filed on March 3, 1993 by Amparo Bueno with the
On official leave.
Rollo, pp. 3-5.
Decision
Factual Antecedents
In her complaint, 5 Bueno related that she hired Atty. Raeses to
represent her in Civil Case No. 777. In consideration for his services, Bueno
paid Atty. Raeses a retainer fee of P3,000.00. She also agreed to pay him
P300.00 for every hearing he attended. No receipt was issued for the retainer
fee paid.
Bueno alleged that on November 14, 1988, Atty. Raeses asked for
P10,000.00. This amount would allegedly be divided between him and Judge
2
3
4
5
Id. at 76-81.
Id. at 74.
Id. at 75.
Supra note 1.
Decision
Nidea, the judge hearing Civil Case No. 777, so that they would not lose the
case. Atty. Raeses told Bueno not to tell anyone about the matter. She
immediately sold a pig and a refrigerator to raise the demanded amount, and
gave it to Atty. Raeses.
Bueno later discovered that the trial court had required Atty. Raeses
to comment on the adverse partys offer of evidence and to submit their
memorandum on the case, but Atty. Raeses failed to comply with the
courts directive. According to Bueno, Atty. Raeses concealed this
development from her. In fact, she was shocked when a court sheriff arrived
sometime in May 1991 to execute the decision against them.
Bueno went to Atty. Raeses office to ask him about what happened
to the case. Atty. Raeses told her that he had not received any decision.
Bueno later discovered from court records that Atty. Raeses actually
received a copy of the decision on December 3, 1990. When she confronted
Atty. Raeses about her discovery and showed him a court-issued
certification, Atty. Raeses simply denied any knowledge of the decision.
In a separate affidavit, 6 Bueno related another instance where Atty.
Raeses asked his client for money to win a case. Sometime in June 1991,
Atty. Raeses allegedly asked her to deliver a telegram from Justice Buena
of the Court of Appeals to her aunt, Socorro Bello. He told her to tell Bello
to prepare P5,000.00, an amount that Justice Buena purportedly asked for in
6
Decision
relation to Criminal Case No. T-1909 that was then on appeal with the Court
of Appeals.
7
8
9
10
11
12
Decision
Atty. Raeses did not attend the January 17, 2001 hearing. On the
same day, Commissioner Gonzaga declared the case deemed submitted for
resolution after the complainants submission of her memorandum. 14
13
14
15
16
17
Decision
18
Id. at 76-81.
Decision
The Court approves the IBPs findings but resolves to disbar Atty.
Raeses from the practice of law in accordance with Commissioner
Limpingcos recommendation and based on our own observations and
findings in the case.
Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity
to the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in them. 20 A client is entitled to the benefit of all remedies and defenses
19
Decision
Garcia v. Bala, supra, at 92, citing Sarenas-Ochagabia v. Ocampos, A.C. No. 4401, January 29,
2004, 421 SCRA 286, 290.
22
Sarenas-Ochagabia v. Ocampos, supra; In Re: Atty. Santiago F. Marcos, Adm. Case No. 922,
December 29, 1987, 156 SCRA 844; and People v. Villar, Jr., No. L-34092, July 29, 1972, 46 SCRA 107.
23
Supra note 20.
24
G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 378.
Decision
inhibit from his clients case. The Court found that the respondent lawyer
therein violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the
rule that instructs lawyers to refrain from any impropriety tending to
influence, or from any act giving the appearance of influencing, the court.
The respondent lawyer therein was suspended from the practice of law for
one year.
By its very nature, the act [of] soliciting money for bribery
purposes would necessarily take place in secrecy with only respondent
Atty. Raeses and complainant Bueno privy to it. Complainant Amparo
Bueno has executed sworn statements and had readily affirmed her
allegations in this regard in hearings held before the IBP Investigating
Commissioners. Respondent Atty. Raeses, for his part, has not even seen
it fit to file any answer to the complaint against him, much less appear in
any hearings scheduled in this investigation. 25
25
Decision
10
First, he extracted money from his client for a purpose that is both
false and fraudulent. It is false because no bribery apparently took place as
Atty. Raeses in fact lost the case.
Beyond these, he
maligned the judge and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court
cases are won, not on the merits, but through deceitful means a decidedly
black mark against the Judiciary. Last but not the least, Atty. Raeses
grossly disrespected the IBP by his cavalier attitude towards its disciplinary
proceedings.
From these perspectives, Atty. Raeses wronged his client, the judge
allegedly on the take, the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which
he is a member. The Court cannot and should not allow offenses such as
these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and all to all lawyers,
their clients and the general public that the Court will not hesitate to act
decisively and with no quarters given to defend the interest of the public, of
our judicial system and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that these
are not compromised by unscrupulous or misguided members of the Bar.
11
Decision
Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well
as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, be notified of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
J. VELASCO, JR.
As ociate Justice
Associate Justice
~~otftoE~o
Associate Justice
(On Leave)
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
a('*~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ROB~BAD
Associate Justice
........._
~.VILLA
'JR.
JOS
REZ
Associate Ju~'t-Ht~-
JOSE
C~ENDOZA
As~Dc~~JZtice
Associate Justice
(On Leave)
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
11