EN BANC
[A.C. No. 4500. April 30, 1999.]
BAN HUA U. FLORES
BAN HUA U. FLORES,
complainant
,
vs
. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA
. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA ,
respondent
.
SYNOPSIS
SYNOPSIS
Complainant Ban Hua U. Flores sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Enrique S. Chua,
a practicing lawyer in the City of Bacolod for various offenses amounting to malpractice,
gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Conduct and
Responsibility, as well as the provisions of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. The
Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of respondent upheld the 4ndings of facts and
conclusion of culpability of the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. The misconduct of respondent, according to the Court, which the case has
unfolded, was grave and serious that brought dishonor to the legal profession. Committed
in succession and within a short time, the misconduct exposes a habit, attitude, and
mindset not only to abuse one's legal knowledge or training, but also to deliberately defy
or ignore known virtues and values which the legal profession demands from its members.
cdasia
Respondent was held guilty of gross misconduct and was ordered disbarred from the
practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
SYLLABUS
LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; THE MISCONDUCT OF RESPONDENT IS GRAVE AND
SERIOUS THAT BRINGS DISHONOR TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION; COMMITTED IN
SUCCESSION AND WITHIN A SHORT TIME, THE MISCONDUCT EXPOSES A HABIT,
ATTITUDE, AND MINDSET NOT ONLY TO ABUSE ONE'S LEGAL KNOWLEDGE OR
TRAINING, BUT ALSO TO DEFY OR IGNORE KNOWN VIRTUES AND VALUES WHICH THE
LEGAL PROFESSION DEMANDS FROM ITS MEMBERS; IMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME
PENALTY OF DISBARMENT IS IN PROPER ORDER. — We fully agree with the Investigating
Commissioner in his 4ndings of facts and conclusion of culpability, and even in his own
lament that the recommended penalty "would even seem light." Indeed, the misconduct of
respondent, which this case has unfolded, is grave and serious that brings dishonor to the
legal profession. Committed in succession and within a short time, the misconduct
exposes a habit, attitude, and mindset not only to abuse one's legal knowledge or training,
but also to deliberately defy or ignore known virtues and values which the legal profession
demands from its members. In respondent's notarization of a forged deed of sale, we see
not just an act of generosity lavishly extended. We see his active role to perpetuate a fraud,
a deceitful act to prejudice a party. He did not deny knowing the supposed vendor. As a
matter of fact, he certi4ed in the acknowledgment that he knew the vendor and knew him
to be the same person who executed the document. When he then solemnly declared that
such "vendor" appeared before him and acknowledged to him that the document was the
vendor's free act and deed despite the fact the "vendor" did not do so as his "signature"
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
was forged, respondent deliberately made false representations. It must be stressed that
under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, a notary public, like herein respondent, "shall certify
