Ramos v Atty Imbang

32. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang AC No. 6788; August23, 2007 Facts : This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Profess ional Responsibility. 1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil andcriminal actions against the spouses Roque and ElenitaJovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued areceipt for P5,000 only.Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases againstthe Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter thecourtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would thencome out after several hours toinform her that the hearing hadbeen cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and foreach “appearance” in court, respondent charged her P350.Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any caseagainst the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO) ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred. HELD: YES, as per SC’s decision Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service. The SC supported this with three explanations: 1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed inthe Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorizedby the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will notconflict with their official function. In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the complainant andissued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with thePAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-clientrelationship. 2. Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides:oThe PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees fromthe complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. 3. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:o CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECTFOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includesthe observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated byImbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and receivedattorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a breach ofRule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because theprohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him fromacting as Ramos' counsel.