A.C. No.
7204 March 7, 2007
CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, Respondent
Facts:
The case is a disbarment case against respondent on
the ground of gross immorality. It was alleged that sometime in
December 2004, complainant seek for legal advice from
peitioner regarding her collectibles from a travel company.
Respondent sent Demand Letter and sometime in February
2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility
of filing complaint against the travel company because the
latter failed to settle the accounts. That after that said meeting,
the respondent "held her arm and kissed her on the cheek
while embracing her very tightly."
The two met again to finalize the draft for the
complaint and while on their way home after the said meeting,
the respondent suddenly stopped the car and things went out
of hand. Thus she decided to refer the case to another lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed acts are
grossly immoral which would warrant the disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law.
Held:
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON I – x x x
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar.
xxxx
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the
tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but all
throughtout their legal career as lawyers belong to an exclusive
and honored fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard
the integrity of the legal profession and should adhere to the
unwaveringly to the highest standard of morality. The
respondent admitted to the act of kissing the complainant on
the lips as evidenced as well of his asking for apology from
complainant in his text message. Regardless of the fact that the
respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but the
Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because
the respondent immediately asked for forgiveness after sensing
the annoyance of the respondent after texting him. Thus the
Court held that this is not grossly immoral nor highly
reprehensible which will warrant disbarment or suspension.
But the Court reprimanded respondent to be more prudent and
cautious.
G.R. No. 164273 March 28, 2007
EMMANUEL B. AZNAR, Petitioner,
vs.
CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines), Respondent.
Facts:
Petitioner is a holder of a credit card issued by
respondent with credit limit of P150 000. He increased his
limit to P635 000 since they have the plan to go on an Asian
Tour. They purchased their plane tickets using said card but
upon arriving with the intention to purchase something in the
countries that they went to, the said card was dishonored. They
also tried to use the card to purchase their return ticket but the
same was dishonored and was informed that the card was
blacklisted. Thus they purchased their tickets in cash. Upon
returning to the Philippines, petitioner instituted a complaint
for damages against Citibank claiming that respondent with
fraud and gross negligence blacklisted his card which caused
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched
reputation and social humiliation.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was able to establish his
claim against respondent.
Held:
The SC held in the negative. It is basic in civil cases
that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The party that
alleges the fact has the burden of proving it. Aznar in his
testimony admitted that he had no personal knowledge that his
Mastercard was blacklisted by Citibank and only presumed
such fact from the dishonor of his card. It is settled that in
order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of
which he complains, he must establish that such injuries
resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the
plaintiff – a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal
responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for
the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was
injured in contemplation of law; thus there must first be a
breach before damages may be awarded and the breach of such
duty should be the proximate cause of the injury. (BPI Express
Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 262, 276 (1998)
In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral
damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross
negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of
his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton,
reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.
(Equitable Banking Corp. v. Calderon, G.R. No. 156168,
December 14, 2004, 446 SCRA 271, 276)