Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

A.C. No.

10952
ENGEL PAUL ACA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RONALDO P. SALVADO, Respondent.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Salvado violated the Canon 1.01 and Canon 7.03
Facts: Atty. Salvado gained Aca’s trust in investing in his business when he promised a very
high return saying that he would not put his reputation as a lawyer on the line. Aca invested and
as a consideration of this investment, Salvado issued several postdated checks and upon its
presentation in the bank, these are from an account which has insufficient funds. Aca complained
to Salvado and Salvado reassured him that everything will be fine and his investment will to him
in time. However, as time passed by, Salvado ignored Aca’s calls and inquiries about the said
investment. Eventually, Aca went into Salvado’s home for confrontation but Salvado’s staffs
gave out a wrong information which was instructed by Salvado. When Aca was about to leave
Salvado’s home, A red car pulled up which contained Salvado and they talked out the
investment. Salvado reassured that the investment will be returned.
Decision: Yes. Atty. Salvado violated Canon 1.01 and Canon 7.03. The issuance of the bounced
checks and non-transparency in the investment made constitutes dishonesty. Moreover, when
Salvado instructed his staffs to conceal his whereabouts is also dishonesty. As in Canon 1,
lawyers should uphold a good moral character and always observe honesty. Salvado clearly
violated those. Hence, Salvado was suspended in practice of law for 2 years.

You might also like