SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO and AIDA AMATORIO vs.

ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP and ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP

A.C. No. 5914
March 11, 2015

FACTS: Atty. Yap sued the spouses Amatorio to collect the amount of P94,173.44. The answer filed by
Atty. Paras was however, stricken off the record for the reason that he was suspended from the practice
of law at the time of its filing.
Unable to find a lawyer to replace Atty. Paras, the Amatorio’s decided to seek an out – of – court
settlement.
On May 23, 2001, Aida Amatorio went to Atty. Yap’s law office. She appealed for his
reconsideration and asked that they be allowed to pay their obligations by way of installment. The
parties agreed on the terms of payment and on the same day, Aida tendered the first payment of
P20,000 which was duly received and acknowledged by Atty. Yap in the written letterhead of Yap Law
Office.
When Aida asked Atty. Yap if they should still attend the pre-trial conference scheduled on May 28,
2001, Atty. Yap assured her that they need not attend anymore as he will be moving for the dismissal of
the case. Relying on Atty.Yap’s assurance, spouses Amatario did not attend the scheduled hearing.

Subsequently, Spouses Amatorio were surprised to receive copies of the decision of the trial court
filed by Atty.Yap, declaring them in default for non-appearance during the pre-trial conference and
ordering them to pay the amount of their indebtedness with damages. The decision, however, did not
mention the out – of - court settlement between the parties.

Nonetheless, the spouses continued tendering installment payments to Atty. Yap’s upon the
latter’s assurance that he will disregard the decision of the trial court.

Again, the spouses were surprised to learn, however, that Yap filed a motion for the issuance of a
writ of execution and, in fact, the trial court issued that writ.

The spouses filed a disbarment case against Atty. Yap with the IBP where Atty. Paras served as
their counsel.

The IBP commissioner recommends that Atty. Yap should be suspended from the practice of law
for six (6) months.

Upon review by the IBP Board of Governors, it was approved that Atty. Yap be suspended from the
practice of law for three (3) months.

On August 9, 2007, the spouses terminated the services of Atty. Paras for reason that they can no
longer afford the services of a private lawyer.

Suspiciously, on the same day, the spouses executed a Judicial Affidavit forgiving and exonerating
Atty. Yap for his malpractice.
ISSUE: Whether the statements of the spouses Amatorio, especially contesting the truthfulness of the
allegations against Atty. Yap in their own complaint for disbarment necessarily results to Atty. Yap’s
absolution.

HELD: NO. The Court cannot just aside the finding of culpability against Atty. Yap merely because the
spouses Amatorio have decided to forgive him or settle matters amicably after the case was completely
evaluated and reviewed by the IBP.

The spouses’ forgiveness or even withdrawal from the case does not ipso facto obliterate the
misconduct committed by Atty. Yap. To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the spouses to
withdraw the disbarment case considering that they had already presented and supported their claims
with convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated a resolution on the basis thereof.

It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.
Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach, in order to promote the public faith in the legal profession.

Because of the misconduct of Atty. Yap, it is deemed a violation of his oath to keep sacred the
integrity of the profession for which he must be disciplined.

It is clearly established that Atty. Yap received P20,000 as initial payments for their out – of - court
settlement. He told the Spouses not to attend the pre-trial and he did not inform the court of the
settlement. The trial court granted the motion for execution of the decision filed by Atty. Yap, thus,
violating the standards of honesty provided for in the Code of Professional Responsibility.