G.R. No. A.C. No. 5987. August 28, 2019
Vidaylin Yamon-Leach, Complainant, vs. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Vidaylin Yamon-Leach filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Arturo B. Astorga for deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, and gross violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a distant relative and client of the respondent, alleged that in September 2001, respondent urged her to buy a beach-front property in Baybay, Leyte, for P1.4 million. She gave him P110,000.00 initially and later, while in the U.S., sent P1,300,215.00 for the balance. In December 2001, respondent presented an undated “Deed of Absolute Sale” with sellers Ariston Chaperon and Ursula Gumba, not the original owner Villaflora Un. The complainant signed but later discovered irregularities: the sellers were already deceased (Chaperon died in 1994, Gumba in 1995), their signatures were forgeries, and the property was not beach-front nor owned by Un. Respondent admitted fault and promised repayment, providing an “Agreement” and “Deed of Real Estate Mortgage” for P1,819,651.00 (the total amount received), but failed to pay. The Court issued multiple resolutions from 2003 to 2012 requiring respondent to file a comment, imposing fines for non-compliance, but respondent repeatedly ignored the orders, only paying a fine in 2011 without filing the comment.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Arturo B. Astorga should be disbarred based on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including his failure to comply with Court orders.

RULING

Yes, the Court disbarred Atty. Arturo B. Astorga. The Court found respondent guilty of deceit and gross misconduct for misappropriating complainant’s funds intended for a property purchase, fabricating a deed of sale with forged signatures of deceased persons, and failing to render an accounting or return the money. This constituted a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibit deceit and require lawyers to hold client funds with utmost fidelity. Additionally, respondent’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders to file a comment, despite extensions and fines, constituted willful disobedience and gross misconduct under Canon 12, prejudicing the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that such actions, coupled with his disregard for judicial processes, warranted disbarment to protect the public and the legal profession. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and he was perpetually disqualified from reinstatement.