Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rayos Ombac V Rayos
Rayos Ombac V Rayos
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
This case stemmed from a petition for disbarment filed with this Court by Mrs.
Irene Rayos-Ombac against her nephew, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, a legal
practitioner in Metro Manila, for "his failure to adhere to the standards of mental and
moral fitness set up for members of the bar." [1]
The records show that in January 1985, respondent induced complainant who
was then 85 years old to withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust them to him for
safekeeping.Respondent told her that if she withdraws all her money in the bank,
they will be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband and his other heirs
will be precluded from inheriting part of it.
Acting on respondent's suggestion, complainant preterminated all her time
deposits with the Philippine National Bank on January 18, 1985. She
withdrew P588,000.00.
Respondent then advised complainant to deposit the money with Union Bank
where he was working. He also urged her to deposit the money in his name to
prevent the other heirs of her husband from tracing the same.
Complainant heeded the advice of respondent. On January 22, 1985,
respondent deposited the amount of P588,000.00 with Union Bank under the name
of his wife in trust for seven beneficiaries, including his son. The maturity date of the
time deposit was May 22, 1985.
On May 21, 1985, complainant made a demand on respondent to return
the P588,000.00 plus interest. Respondent told her that he has renewed the deposit
for another month and promised to return the whole amount including interest on
June 25, 1985. Respondent, however, failed to return the money on June 25, 1985.
On August 16, 1985, respondent informed complainant that he could only
return P400,000.00 to be paid on installment. Complainant acceded to respondent's
proposal as she was already old and was in dire need of money.
On the same date, respondent and complainant executed a memorandum of
agreement stating:
WHEREAS, the said amount was deposited by (respondent) with the consent of
(complainant) with the UNION BANK, J.P. Rizal Branch, Makati, Metro Manila.
WHEREAS, upon mutual agreement of the parties, they have agreed as they hereby
agree on the following terms for the purpose of disposing of the above sum, to wit:
1. Of the sum of P588,000.00 received in trust, (respondent) shall return only the
sum of P400,000.00 to (complainant) in the following manner:
2. (Respondent) hereby undertakes and guarantees that at the time the aforesaid
postdated checks fall due, the same should be backed up with sufficient funds on a
best efforts basis.
4. That the parties have executed this agreement with the view of restoring their
previous cordial filial relationship."[2]
1. UCPB Check No. 487974 dated August 19, 1985 in the amount
of P100,000.00;
2. UCPB Check No. 487975 dated October 19, 1985 in the amount of P200,000;
3. UCPB Check No. 487976 dated November 19, 1985 in the amount
of P100,000.00.
Complainant was not able to encash UCPB Check No. 487974 as it was
dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Respondent, nonetheless, asserted that he was not duty-bound to fund the
check because under paragraph 2 of the memorandum of agreement, he only
guaranteed that the checks shall be "backed up with sufficient funds on a best
efforts basis." This prompted the other relatives of respondent and complainant to
intervene in the brewing dispute between the two. They begged respondent to pay
his obligation to complainant. Heeding their plea, respondent replaced UCPB Check
No. 487974 with two new checks, one for P64,800.00 and another
for P35,200.00. Complainant was able to encash the first check but not the second
because it was dishonored by the drawee bank. The remaining checks, UCPB
Check No. 487975 and UCPB Check No. 487976, were likewise dishonored by the
drawee bank for lack of funds.
On November 15, 1985, complainant filed a complaint for estafa against
respondent and a corresponding information was filed against him by the provincial
fiscal.
Respondent thereafter made a proposal to complainant for an amicable
settlement. To pay his debt, respondent offered to complainant two second hand
cars and cash amounting to P40,000.00. Complainant refused the offer because she
needed cash to provide for her daily needs.
The records also show that respondent filed several suits against complainant.
First, in February 1985, respondent filed a criminal case for estafa against
complainant. It appears that respondent has previously told the tenants of a parcel
of land owned by complainant that she had promised to sell them the land and that
she had authorized him to negotiate with them. He obtained from the tenants
advance payment for the lots they were occupying. Respondent then prepared a
special power of attorney[3] authorizing him to sell the land and asked complainant to
sign it. Complainant, however, refused to sign because she did not intend to make
respondent her attorney-in-fact. Hence, the tenants sued respondent for
estafa. Respondent, in turn, sued complainant for estafa for allegedly reneging on
her promise to sell the land.
Then, on April 5, 1986, respondent filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Review
Acts of Administratrix as a Prelude for Formal Motion to (sic) her Discharge" in
Special Proceedings No. 5544 for the settlement of the estate of complainant's
husband, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
[4]
Respondent filed the pleading although he was not a party to the case.
Finally, on May 19, 1986, respondent indicted complainant for "falsification by
private individuals and use of falsified documents under Article 172 of the Revised
Penal Code" for allegedly making untruthful statements in her petition for
appointment as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. [5]
Thus, in June 1986, complainant filed with this Court a complaint to disbar
respondent on two grounds: (1) that respondent employed clever scheme to defraud
complainant, and (2) that respondent filed frivolous cases against complainant to
harass her.
Respondent subsequently filed a complaint for disbarment against complainant's
counsel, Atty. Abelardo Viray. The complaint cited four causes of action: (1)
assisting client to commit tax fraud; (2) use of unorthodox collection method; (3)
ignorance of the law; and (4) subornation of perjury.[6]
Both disbarment cases were consolidated and referred to the Office of the
Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
The cases were transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation and disposition pursuant to Section 20 Rule 139-B which took effect on
June 1, 1988.
After investigation, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP recommended
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two years. It also
recommended the dismissal of the complaint to disbar Atty. Viray for lack of merit. [7]
On January 27, 1996, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No.
XII-96-22 stating:
"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
"A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause."