MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY.

DOROTHEO CALIS, respondent

Supreme Court
September 9, 1999
A.C. No. 5118

FACTS:
- Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November 1992, she was
referred to respondent (Atty. Calis) who promised to process all necessary documents for
the complainants trip to the USA for a fee of P150,000
- December 1992, the complainant made a partial payment of P20,000 which was received
by Ester Calis, wife of the respondent where a receipt was issued.
- From January 1993 to May 1994, the complainant had several conferences with the
respondent regarding the process of her travel documents where the respondent asked
an additional P65,000 to facilitate the process and prevailed that the complainant resign
from her job as a stenographer for the CHR.
- June 1994, to speed up the process of the documents, complainant issued a check
amounting P65,000 in favor of respondent who issued a receipt. Respondent also
furnished the complainant with copies of Supplemental to US Nonimmigrant Visa
Application and a list of questions which will be asked during interviews.
- When complainant inquired of her passport, respondent said that she will be assuming
the name of Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of
Matiao Marketing, Inc.
- Complainant demanded the return of her money realizing that she will be traveling with
spurious documents. She was assured by the respondent that there is nothing to worry
for he has been doing this business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money
will be refunded if something goes wrong
- Weeks before the departure, respondent asked for payment of the required fee which was
paid by the complainant; no receipt was issued to her
- September 1994, on the date of the departure, the passport was issued to complainant
and together with fellow recruits of the respondent, Jennyfer Belo and Maribal
- Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant along with the other
recruits was apprehended by Singapore Officials stating that they were carrying spurious
travel documents. They were detained form September 6 to 9 at the Changi Prisons in
Singapore
- September 1994, the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and the
respondent fetched her form the airport and brought her to his residence. Respondent took
the complainants passport and assured her that he will secure new travel documents for
her. However, complainant opted not to pursue with her travel and demanded the return
of her money in the amount of P150,000
- June 1996, respondent made partial refunds of P15,000, P6000, and P5000.
- December 1996, complainant through counsel, sent a demand letter to respondent for the
refund of the remaining balance of P114,000 which was ignored by the respondent
- March 1997 and May 1997, complainant went to see the respondent, however his wife
said that he was in Cebu for business matters and the second time, respondent had
transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility
 - Attached to the complaint was the receipts, application for the US Visa, Q&As for the
interview, receipts of the partial refunds, and the demand letter for the remaining balance;
which was received by the respondent. However, despite several notices sent to the
respondent, there was no response. Respondent also failed to attend the scheduled
hearings on the case. As a result, the investigation proceeded ex parte

ISSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral or Deceitful conduct as

well as a violation of his oath as a Lawyer

RULING: YES.

- Respondent is not engaged in illegal recruitment because there was no mention of job
placement or employment abroad.
- The proposal of the respondent to secure a USA Visa for the complainant under a false
identity was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit.
- HOWEVER, the transfer of residence without forwarding address indicates his attempt to
escape responsibility.

In light of the foregoing, the court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct for
violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Dorotheo Calis
is suspended as a member of the bar until he fully refunds the fees paid to him by the
complainant.

The court agrees that with the finding of the commission that the charge of illegal recruitment
was not stablished because complainant failed to substantiate her allegation on the matter. The
court also agrees with the UBP Board of Governors in its resolution where respondent is guilty of
gross misconduct. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could give her
visa and travel documents; spurious documents nothing untoward will happen; that he
guaranteed her arrival in the USA and even guaranteed to refund her the fees and expenses if
something goes wrong. Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and
dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers
relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and
candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. Also, the adamant refusal of the respondent to
comply with the orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are
contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct.