Ramos v. Imbang | A.C. No.

6788 | Aug 23, 2007 | Ponente: per curiam

Nature of Case: Administrative case in SC. Disbarment and Suspension

Complainant: Diana Ramos
Respondent: Atty. Jose R. Imbang

SUMMARY: Complainant filed an action for disbarment or suspension against Atty. Ramos on grounds that he
deceived her into believing that he filed a case for her against the Jovellaoses after she paid him, only to find out
later that Imbang did not and is not able to since he was employed in PAO. Court ruled that his acts of deceit and
dishonesty violated several provisions of the CPR except Rule 16.01 since Imbang received money from Ramos as
his Atty’s fees and did not hold amount in trust for complainant. Imbang is disbarred.
DOCTRINE: Rule 6.02 – Not to Use Public Position for Private Interest

FACTS:
 1992 complainant Ramos sought assistance of respondent Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal
actions against spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos;
o Ramos paid P8,500 as Atty’s fees but was issued a receipt for P5,000 only.
o Respondent never allowed her to enter courtroom and to only wait outside. He would
afterwards come out to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled;
which happened 6 times. For each appearance, respondent charged her P350
o When she personally inquired about the status of her cases, she learned that Imbang never
filed any case against the Jovellanoses
o Imbang was in fact employed in PAO.
 Respondent’s defense:
o Ramos knew that he was in the government service from the very start; they 1st met when
Imbang was still district atty in the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO)
o Ramos requested him to file an action for damages against the Jovellanoses but since he was
with PAO and Ramos was not an indigent, he declined.
o He advised Ramos to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, however, Ungson declined since Ramos was
unable to come up with the acceptance fee.
o Afraid that she might spend cash on hand, Ramos, then asked Imbang to keep the P5,000
while she raised the balance of Atty. Ungson’s acceptance fee.
o April 15 1994 Imbang resigned from PAO;
o Sep 1994 Ramos again asked him to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Since he was now a
private practitioner, he agreed to prepare complaint but was unable to finalize it because he
lost contact with Ramos.
 Nov 22 2004 CBD of IBP recommended Imbang’s suspension from practice of law for 3 years and
immediately return P5,000 to Ramos; They reported that
o Receipt was issued while Imbang was still with PAO
o They found Imbang guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers from
accepting private cases and receiving lawyer’s fees other than their salaries.
o Violations:
 Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from a client.
 Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with
the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.
 IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved findings of CBD regarding violations but imposed
interest at the legal rate to the restitution of P5,000.

ISSUE + RULING:
1. MAIN ISSUE: WON Imbang should be disbarred? YES.
  Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this
reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited.
 As provided in Sec 7(b)(2) of Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, lawyers
in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves
fulltime to the work of their respective offices.
Imbang’s admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the
presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and Ramos. Moreover, the receipt showed
that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer which is a clear
violation of the prohibition on private practice of profession.
 The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants as
provided in Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code.
Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary.
 Violations on Code of Professional Responsibility:
o Canon 1 provides that every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law, which includes the
mentioned prohibitions.
o Rule 18.01 prohibits a lawyer to undertake a legal service which he knows or should know
that he is not qualified to render. In this case, he was disqualified by the prohibitions of his
office against private practice.
o Lawyer’s oath – Imbang surreptitiously deceived Ramos by not only failing to file case but
also leading Ramos to believe that he did file an action and that he was attending hearings
for it (from which he even asked for appearance fees)
 However, regarding Rule 16.01;
o Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of the complainant but accepted it as his
attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the complainant (such as an amount
delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment obligation in favor of the client) nor was
it given to him for a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail bond).
 Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he was not entitled to attorney's fees and not
allowed to accept them

FINAL RULING: Atty Imbang is found guilty. He is disbarred from practice of law. Ordered to return P5,000 with
interest.

Note:

Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees
now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any
public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
xxx xxx xxx
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict with their official function.

Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code:

Sec. 14. xxx

The 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