AM 2019; (June, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 2019; June 3, 1991
SHIRLEY CUYUGAN LIZASO, complainant, vs. ATTY. SERGIO AMANTE, respondent
FACTS
Complainant Shirley Cuyugan-Lizaso filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio Amante for deceitful and grossly immoral conduct. She alleged that on August 7, 1978, she gave Amante a P5,000.00 check for investment in his casino business, with a guaranteed 10% daily profit and capital return after two months, as evidenced by a signed receipt. Amante encashed the check but failed to deliver any interest or return the principal despite repeated demands. Complainant sought assistance from university officials, but Amante denied the debt and avoided confrontations.
Respondent Amante presented a contradictory version, claiming the check was repayment for a prior loan he extended to complainant. He denied signing the investment receipt and alleged complainant fabricated the claim after he refused a second loan. However, during the investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Amante failed to complete his presentation of evidence and did not formally offer his exhibits.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Sergio Amante should be disciplined for conduct warranting disbarment or suspension.
RULING
Yes, respondent is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. The Court, adopting the OSG’s findings, held that complainant proved by clear and convincing evidence that she delivered P5,000.00 to Amante for investment purposes. The endorsement “capital investment” on the back of the check, visible on the bank’s microfilm, corroborated her claim and negated Amante’s loan defense. His failure to account for and return the money, despite demands, constituted dishonest conduct. His subsequent denials and failure to formally offer evidence compounded this deceit.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle that a lawyer may be disciplined for gross misconduct outside professional duties if it renders him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, which is not confined to professional activities. Amante’s conversion of client funds for personal use and his dissimulation are clear violations of this standard, demonstrating a lack of the good character essential to the legal profession. His actions eroded the trust integral to the attorney-client relationship and the public’s confidence in the bar.