Atty. Decena was charged with two counts of misconduct. The first charge involved deceiving clients into signing real estate mortgage documents for escalating loan amounts under false pretenses. The second charge involved compromising a client's case and accepting payment without the client's consent. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Decena deceived his clients in the first charge and violated rules regarding representing clients' interests in the second charge. As such, his actions constituted moral turpitude warranting disbarment from the practice of law due to his lack of honesty and candor with clients.
Atty. Decena was charged with two counts of misconduct. The first charge involved deceiving clients into signing real estate mortgage documents for escalating loan amounts under false pretenses. The second charge involved compromising a client's case and accepting payment without the client's consent. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Decena deceived his clients in the first charge and violated rules regarding representing clients' interests in the second charge. As such, his actions constituted moral turpitude warranting disbarment from the practice of law due to his lack of honesty and candor with clients.
Atty. Decena was charged with two counts of misconduct. The first charge involved deceiving clients into signing real estate mortgage documents for escalating loan amounts under false pretenses. The second charge involved compromising a client's case and accepting payment without the client's consent. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Decena deceived his clients in the first charge and violated rules regarding representing clients' interests in the second charge. As such, his actions constituted moral turpitude warranting disbarment from the practice of law due to his lack of honesty and candor with clients.
NARCISO MELENDREZ and ERLINDA DALMAN, complainants, vs. ATTY. REYNERIO I. DECENA, respondent. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. Rule 138. Sec 23. A lawyer cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash. Facts: There was two charged filed against Atty. Decena. First was about a 4k loan obtained by the spo uses secured by a real estate mortgage. However, it appeared on the real estate mortgage docu ment that the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00 instead of 4k. He said that the sig ning of the documents was just for formality. so, they did. The spouses religiously paid 10% or 5 00 as interest for only 3months because of financial reverses. Consequently, Atty. Decena made a second real estate mortgage document and the loan extended to complainants had escalated to P10,000.00. Again, on the assurance that it was only for formality, the spouses signed the ne w REM document. After 3 years, they learned that their lot was already sold to someone. So they tried to raise the 10k and went to Atty. Decena’s house but the latter did not accept the money and instead gave them a sheet of paper indicating that the total indebtedness had soared to 20,400. The second charge against respondent relates to acts done in his professional capacity, that is, done at a time when he was counsel for the complainants in a criminal case for estafa against a ccused. It was alleged that Atty. Decena effected a compromise agreement concerning the civil l iability of accused without the consent and approval of the complainants and that he received t he amount of P500.00 as an advance payment and he did not inform the spouses about this. An d even after he was confronted, he still did not turn over the money. Issue: WON the lawyer acts constitute moral turpitude and warrants disbarment. Ruling: Atty. Decena was disbarred. As to the first charge, the SC held that Atty. Decena indeed deceived the spouses. From the facts obtaining in the case, it is clear that the complainants were induced to sign the Real Estate Mortgage documents by the false and fraudulent representations of respondent tha t each of the successive documents was a are formality. While it may be true that complainants are not at all illiterate, respondent, being a lawyer, shou ld have at least explained to complainants the legal implications of the provisions of the real est ate mortgage, particularly the provision appointing him as the complainants’ attorney-in-fact in the event of default in payments on the part of complainants. As to the second charge, repondent is presumed to be aware of Section 23 Rule 138 that lawyer s cannot “without special authority, compromise their clients’ litigation or receive anything in di scharge of a client’s claim, but the full amount in cash.” Respondent’s failure to turn over to spo uses the partial payment underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients. The SC reiterated that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to t he practice of law but a continuing requirement.