AC 2884; (January 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 2884 January 28, 1998
Irene Rayos-Ombac, complainant, vs. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, respondent.
FACTS
In January 1985, respondent Atty. Orlando A. Rayos induced his 85-year-old aunt, complainant Irene Rayos-Ombac, to withdraw all her bank deposits totaling P588,000.00 from the Philippine National Bank by falsely telling her it would exclude the money from her deceased husband’s estate. He then advised her to deposit the money at Union Bank under his wife’s name. The money was placed in a time deposit in trust for seven beneficiaries, including respondent’s son. Upon demand for its return, respondent failed to deliver the money. On August 16, 1985, they executed a memorandum of agreement where respondent acknowledged the trust and agreed to return only P400,000.00 in installments, with the remaining P188,000.00 treated as his debt. The checks he issued for the installments were dishonored. Respondent also filed several suits against the complainant: a criminal case for estafa in February 1985, a motion in the settlement proceedings of her husband’s estate (where he was not a party) in April 1986, and an indictment for falsification in May 1986. The complainant filed this disbarment case in June 1986. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a two-year suspension. Respondent later filed a motion to lift the suspension, attaching an affidavit of withdrawal from the complainant.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Orlando A. Rayos should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility through deceitful conduct and for filing frivolous suits to harass the complainant.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred respondent Atty. Orlando A. Rayos. The Court found that respondent violated Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Rule 1.03 (prohibiting encouragement of suits for corrupt motives or causing delay) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He deceived his elderly aunt to entrust her money to him and refused to return it, and filed unfounded suits against her to harass her and pressure her to withdraw the disbarment case. The Court held that the IBP’s recommended two-year suspension was too mild for the depravity of the offense, warranting disbarment. The affidavit of withdrawal submitted by respondent does not exonerate him, as disbarment proceedings are for the public welfare and the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession, not for private grievance.