MANILA -- The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred a lawyer for committing actions that display lack of good judgment, particularly involving money.
“He has been warned the first time; he has not made amends to undo the consequences of his indiscretions and greed this second time. He was punished with three years of suspension, but to no avail, as no sooner could he complete the service of the penalty than he is again before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Court reviewing his actuations,” the SC en banc ruled in a 13-page per curiam decision promulgated on August 14 released Thursday.
Lawyer Elmer dela Rosa was found guilty of gross misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Before his latest run-in with the Court, dela Rosa, had been suspended from the practice of law for three years effective Sept. 26, 2016, for borrowing a substantial amount of money from his client-spouses.
This time, he is accused of anomalies in the handling of money of his client, a cooperative and its farmer-beneficiaries.
In 1997, Palalan CARP Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative hired dela Rosa in a civil case involving the annulment of a transfer certificate of title over a 111.4-hectare land situated in Barangay Lumbia, Cagayan de Oro City, in the cooperative’s name.
In 2002, the cooperative executed a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing dela Rosa to do certain acts but revoked the same in 2007.
Despite the revocation of the SPA, dela Rosa still brokered the sale of the property. Dela Rosa did not dispute that he processed the sale and paid the farmer-beneficiaries their respective shares in the purchase price.
The SC said dela Rosa acted with corrupt intent to flagrantly disregard established ethical rules, and his conduct amounts to grave misconduct.
The IBP-Board of Governors concluded that dela Rosa preferred to protect his own personal pecuniary interest over the interest of his client and its members, and recommended the extreme penalty of disbarment on him, which the SC adopted.
The SC further held that dela Rosa had proven himself disloyal to his client -- exploitative, untrustworthy, and a double-dealer.
"The client did not know who the buyer was when the land had been sold. He acted to protect the buyer’s interest, and in all likelihood, his as well. The client did not know and still does not know how much was actually paid for the land. Money flowed from an account set up by dela Rosa himself and although under the Cooperative’s name, dela Rosa alone had access to it. The cash proceeds of the sale have not been accounted for to this date," the court ruled.
The SC said a lawyer is prohibited from acting or continuing to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except when there is a written consent of all concerned after full disclosure of the facts. In this case, there was no consent to speak of at all. (PNA)
