20-123114-1999-Flores_v._Chua - EN BANC[A.C No 4500 BAN HUA U FLORES complainant vs ATTY ENRIQUE S CHUA respondent SYNOPSIS Complainant Ban Hua U Flores

20-123114-1999-Flores_v._Chua - EN BANC[A.C No 4500 BAN HUA...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 16 pages.

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
Image of page 1
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
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture