JUTTA KRURSEL v ATTY. LORENZA A.
ABION
A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016, Per Curiam
Evasive attitude is tantamount to "a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court," which alone is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and he owes the courts of
justice and its judicial officers utmost respect.
Facts:
Complainant engaged the services of the respondent to assist her in filing a case against
Robinsons Savings Bank-Ermita Branch (RSB) in relation to the bank’s illegal withholding/blocking
of her account. Respondent then filed a complaint against RSB for conducting business in an unsafe
and unsound manner in violation of RA 8791. However, without the complainant’s knowledge, the
respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice through a letter addressed to the Monetary
Board. Complainant claims that respondent forged her signature and that a certain William Randeli
Coleman in the letter. She was further surprised to discover 2 Special Powers of Attorney dated
March 7, 2002 and March 24, 2002 constituting the respondent to represent, receive, sign in their
behalf, all papers, checks, accounts receivables, wired remittances, etc., which appear to have her
and Coleman’s signature as principals. Complainant claims that the signatures were forged.
Complainant also alleges that respondent on 2 occasions failed to account for the amounts he has
given him, 1st for a complaint for “Writ of Preliminary Prohibitive and Mandatory Injunction with
Damages which the respondent received P330,000.00 and 2 nd for the complainant’s German
passport which the respondent received P450,000.00. Respondent also presented an order in favor
of the complainant which was purportedly signed by Atty. Virginia Ancheta-Soriano which was
later on proved to be not true. Complainant also alleged that the passport was obviously fake and
she later found out that her original passport was in the possession of Robinsons Savings Bank.
Complainant filed a complaint against the respondent’s malicious acts and prays that he be
removed from the roster of lawyers. Respondent was required by SC to file her comment however
despite efforts were made, he was nowhere to be found.
Issue:
WON the respondent should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification, and
swindling?
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent's willful behavior has effectively hindered this Court's process service and
unduly prolonged this case. This evasive attitude is unbecoming of a lawyer, an officer of the court
who swore to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities."
Respondent's apparent disregard of the judicial process cannot be tolerated. Under the
circumstances, respondent is deemed to have waived her right to present her evidence for she
cannot use her disappearance as a shield against any liability she may have incurred.
Respondent declared under oath that she caused the preparation of the letter of withdrawal
of the complaint with prejudice. She declared under oath that she also caused the conforme of her
clients after informing them of the facts, both as counsel and attorney-in-fact.
Thus, respondent committed serious acts of deceit in: (1) withdrawing the complaint with
prejudice, without the knowledge and consent of complainant; and (2) forging complainant's
signature or causing her signature to be forged in the April 15, 2002 letter, thus making it appear
that complainant conformed to the withdrawal of the complaint.
Respondent's deception constitutes a gross violation of professional ethics and a breach of
her fiduciary duty to her client, subjecting her to disciplinary action.
Respondent's acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as an
attorney. She violated her oath to "do no falsehood" and to "conduct [her] self as a lawyer . . . with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to; [her] clients." She also violated the following provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
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.
....
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
....
CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
....
CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
....
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
Respondent's transgressions are grave and serious. She abused her legal knowledge and
training. She took undue advantage of the trust reposed on her by her client. Her misconduct
exhibits a brazen disregard of her duties as a lawyer. The advocate for justice became the
perpetrator of injustice.
Aside from defrauding her client, respondent recklessly put Arty. Soriano's career in
jeopardy by fabricating an order, thus making a mockery of the judicial system. That a lawyer is not
merely a professional but also an officer of the court cannot be overemphasized. She owes the
courts of justice and its judicial officers utmost respect. Her conduct degrades the administration of
justice and weakens the people faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched the entire
legal profession.
Respondent's unethical and unscrupulous conduct proves her unworthy of the public's trust
and confidence. She shamelessly transgressed all the things she swore to uphold, which makes her
unfit to continue as a member of the bar. Hence, we find no hesitation in removing respondent from
the Roll of Attorneys.
