3. In Re: Suspension from Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G.

Maquera (Bar Matter No. 793, July 30, 2004)

FACTS: In a Letter dated August 20, 1996,1 the District Court of Guam informed this Court of
the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam for two (2)
years pursuant to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996 in
Special Proceedings Case No. SP0075-94,2 a disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics
Committee against Maquera.

The Court referred the matter of Maquera's suspension in Guam to the Bar Confidant for
comment in its Resolution dated November 19, 1996.3 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a
foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his
disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign court's action is by reason of an act
or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct,
or a violation of the lawyer's oath.

In a Memorandum dated February 20, 1997, then Bar Confidant Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa
recommended that the Court obtain copies of the record of Maquera's case since the
documents transmitted by the Guam District Court do not contain the factual and legal bases for
Maquera's suspension and are thus insufficient to enable her to determine whether Maquera's
acts or omissions which resulted in his suspension in Guam are likewise violative of his oath as
a member of the Philippine Bar.

IN GUAM: At the auction sale, Benavente purchased Castro's property for Five Hundred U.S.
Dollars (US$500.00), the amount which Castro was adjudged to pay him.

On December 21, 1987, Castro, in consideration of Maquera's legal services in the civil case
involving Benavente, entered into an oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of
redemption in favor of the latter.

On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castro's right of redemption by paying Benavente

US$525.00 in satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the
property transferred in his name.

On December 31, 1988, Maquera sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for Three
Hundred Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).

ISSUES: May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from the
practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney be
meted the same sanction as a member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed
in the foreign jurisdiction?
HELD: Suspended by IBP only for non-payment of membership fees. Show cause within 15
days from receipt of resolution before SC makes the decision.

The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in a
foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended
by Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.—A

member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is
a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts
hereinabove enumerated.

The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis supplied).

The Court must therefore determine whether Maquera's acts, namely: acquiring by assignment
Castro's right of redemption over the property subject of the civil case where Maquera appeared
as counsel for him; exercising the right of redemption; and, subsequently selling the property for
a huge profit, violate Philippine law or the standards of ethical behavior for members of the
Philippine Bar and thus constitute grounds for his suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended from the
practice of law for non-payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the present.38
Under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court, non-payment of membership dues
for six (6) months shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP, and default in such
payment for one year shall be ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys.

In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or
until he shall have paid his membership dues, whichever comes later.