BASCO FIDEL C. GALLARDO LL.B.

II-Executive Class

Legal Couselling Sun. 8:00 to 11:00 & 12:00 to 2:00

MEMORANDUM
Re: Catherine & Henry Yu vs. Atty. Palana A.C. No. 7747 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS The herein respondent is a Chairman of the Board of Directors of Wealth Marketing wherein complainants are one of its investors. As investors, Wealth Marketing issued a post dated check covering its principal investments perhaps for security of investments. However, complainants discovered that Wealth Marketings promises were fraud and the check issued to them was dishonored due to closed account. Hence they went to the office of the respondent only to find that the said company ceased to operate and formed new corporation called Ur-Link. Respondent gave an assurance to complainants that Ur-Link would assume the liabilities of the former Corp. In fact both parties signed an agreement between them to that effect but it turned out to be another fraud. Hence, complainants filed criminal cases and this disbarment case before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found out that this was not the first time that respondent committed such act, in fact, she committed same acts for the third time. DECISION Respondent Antoniutti K. Palaa is hereby DISBARRED, and her name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of his prior misconduct herein-before mentioned for which he was penalized with a threeyear suspension with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely; and another six-month suspension

thereafter, the contumacious behavior of respondent in the instant case which grossly degrades the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver penalty --- disbarment. RATIONALE Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office, and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic CRITICISM Being recidivist, the respondent deserves to be disbarred. She never learned her lesson, hence, when she committed the same mistake for the third time, the Supreme Court realized that she doesnt have good moral character that a lawyer should posses all the time as continuing requirement for admission in the bar. It is note worthy that at the time of promulgation of this disbarment case she was not convicted of the crime moral turpitude, yet the Supreme Court disbarred her unlike in the case of Wilkie vs. Atty. Limos which the latter was suspended only for three months. This present case and the case of Wilkie vs. Atty. Limos, basically have the same facts, wherein the respondent issued a bounced check and the complainants filed criminal cases (cases involving moral turpitude) and at the time the decision of the disbarment case respondent were not yet convicted. However, the crucial difference is that respondent of this case was suspended twice yet she fearlessly committed the same mistake for the third time hence this time she was disbarred by the Supreme Court, while in the case of Atty. Limos, he was just a first offender and he timely settle his debt, hence he was suspended only for three months.
-oOo-