G.R. No. A.C. No. 109. August 24, 1954.
JULIAN A. CRESPO AND OTRO, denunciantes, vs. LUIS E. AMURAO, recurrido.

FACTS

An administrative complaint was filed by Major Julian A. Crespo and Captain Valentin F. Escutin of the Philippine Army against lawyer Luis E. Amurao. The complainants accused Amurao of attempting to collect from Mrs. Remedios Fuentes de Mabesa the amounts of P350 and P150 to be delivered to Major Crespo and Captain Escutin, respectively, as compensation for their favorable legal opinion on the posthumous retirement claim of Mrs. Mabesa, which was processed through the Judge Advocate General’s Office where the complainants were assigned. The complainants asserted they never requested nor insinuated to Amurao that they be compensated. In his answer, Amurao admitted the complainants never requested compensation but claimed he was merely reminding Mrs. Mabesa of her own plan and promise to pay him and to reciprocate the complainants. On July 10, 1951, Amurao went to Mrs. Mabesa’s house and left a note with her mother. The note listed amounts: P1,000 for “Atty. Amurao,” P350 for “Major Crespo,” and P150 for “Captain Escutin,” totaling P1,500, described as “Justified expenses for the case.” On the back was a confidential message dated July 10, 1951, stating Amurao had played mahjong with Major Crespo the previous night and was embarrassed because “our promise may be getting late,” urging Mrs. Mabesa to accommodate “us.” Upon learning of the note, Mrs. Mabesa verified with the officers, who denied any request for payment, leading to this complaint. During the investigation, Amurao testified that Mrs. Mabesa promised him a P1,500 fee and also promised to give P500 to the officers, which he later conveyed to Major Crespo during a mahjong game. Major Crespo denied ever playing mahjong with Amurao on the night in question, presenting evidence he was the duty officer at Camp Murphy that night. Amurao later claimed the note’s “last night” referred to a night in June and that “accommodate us” referred to himself and his wife.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer Luis E. Amurao violated professional ethics.

RULING

Yes. The Court found that the promises of reward to the officers, attributed to Mrs. Mabesa, were not true but were mere inventions of Amurao to obtain money from her. The note and his explanations were inconsistent and false. Even assuming Mrs. Mabesa had promised to give something to the officers, Amurao, as a lawyer, should have advised his client that it is prohibited to offer gifts to public officials in consideration of their official duties. Instead, he acted as an instrument to potentially corrupt public officials. His actions were a clear infringement of professional ethics. The Court disbarred Luis E. Amurao from the practice of law.