Yap vs Atty. Buri A.C. No. 11156

A.C. No.11156 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3680], March 19, 2018


MICHELLE YAP, Complainant, v. ATTY. GRACE C. BURI, Respondent.


PERALTA, J.:






Facts:


complainant Yap and respondent Atty. Buri entered into a contract of sale of a condominium for which Php 200,000 remained unpaid by Atty. Buri. Atty. Buri said she will pay php 5,000 per month until fully paid the balance. When Yap disagreed, Buri said she would just cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also started threatening her through text messages, and then later on filed a case for estafa against her. Said case was later dismissed.






Yap then filed an administrative complaint against Buri for the alleged false accusations against her. When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed to comply. She did not even appear during the mandatory conference. Thus, the mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were simply required to submit their respective position papers. However, only Yap complied with said order.






Issue:


Is Atty Buri liable for violating the CPR?






Ruling:


YES.


Here, instead of paying Yap the remaining balance of the purchase price of the condominium unit, Buri opted to simply threaten her and file a criminal case against her.

Obviously, this strategy was to intimidate Yap and prevent her from collecting the remaining P200,000.00. When given a chance to defend herself, Buri chose to stay silent and even refused to file an answer, attend the hearing, or to submit her position paper, despite due notice. Hence, Yap's version of the facts stands and remains uncontroverted.






Buri's persistent refusal to pay her obligation despite frequent demands clearly reflects her lack of integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her knowledge of the law and clearly resorted to threats and intimidation in order to get away with what she wanted, constituting a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.4






Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's Oath that enjoins her to support the Constitution and obey the laws. She forgot that she must not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same. She also took for granted the express commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR.






The foregoing canons require of Buri, as a lawyer, an enduring high sense of responsibility and good fidelity in all her dealings and emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of her, not only in the practice of the legal profession, but in her personal dealings as well. A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the courts and keepers of the public's faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.5






That Buri's act involved a private dealing with Yap is immaterial. Her being a lawyer calls for - whether she was acting as such or in a non­ professional capacity - the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in her relationship with others. There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of his professional capacity. Buri's being a lawyer demands that she conduct herself as a person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in her dealings with others.6






The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties, not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the public, and takes part in the administration of justice, one of the most important functions of the State, as an officer of the court. Accordingly, lawyers are bound to maintain, not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.7






Time and again, the Court has stressed the settled principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession. Consequently, a lawyer can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the Court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.8






Verily, Buri has fallen short of the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing expected of her. On the contrary, she employed her knowledge and skill of the law in order to avoid fulfillment of her obligation, thereby unjustly enriching herself and inflicting serious damage on Yap. Her repeated failure to file her answer and position paper and to appear at the mandatory conference aggravate her misconduct. These demonstrate high degree of irresponsibility and lack of respect for the IBP and its proceedings. Her attitude severely stains the nobility of the legal profession.9













WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court SUSPENDS Atty. Grace C. Buri from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and WARNS her that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.