Legal Ethics: Imbang Disbarment Case

Case Overview

• Diana Ramos filed a complaint for disbarment or suspension against Atty. Jose R. Imbang.
• Imbang allegedly violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Background of the Complaint

• In 1992, Diana Ramos sought legal assistance from Jose R. Imbang to file civil and criminal actions against Roque and Elenita Jovellanos
• Ramos paid Imbang P8,500 for attorney's fees, but Imbang only issued a receipt for P5,000.
• Imbang repeatedly prevented Ramos from entering the courtroom during scheduled hearings.
• Imbang would inform Ramos that hearings were canceled and rescheduled, charging P350 for each "appearance."
• Ramos discovered that Imbang never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and was employed by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO)

Imbang's Defense

• Ramos was aware that Imbang was in government service from the beginning.
• Imbang initially declined to handle Ramos' case because she was not indigent and he worked for the PAO.
• Imbang advised Ramos to consult with Atty. Tim Ungson, but Ungson did not accept the case due to Ramos' inability to pay the acceptance fee.
• Ramos insisted on suing the Jovellanoses and asked Imbang to hold onto P5,000 while she gathered the remaining balance for Ungson's acceptance fee.
• Imbang issued an antedated receipt at Ramos' request to account for the P5,000 given to him for safekeeping.
• Imbang resigned from the PAO on April 15, 1994.
• Ramos requested Imbang's assistance again in suing the Jovellanoses in September 1994, but Imbang couldn't finalize the complaint due to loss of contact.

IBP Recommendation

• The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) received evidence and submitted a report and recommendation.
• The CBD noted the receipt was issued while Imbang was with the PAO.
• The CBD also noted Imbang described Ramos as business savvy, and that Imbang himself was a seasoned lawyer.
• The CBD rejected Imbang's claim that he issued the receipt as a favor and found him guilty of violating prohibitions.
• Lawyers are prohibited from accepting private cases and fees other than their salaries while employed by the government.
• The CBD concluded Imbang violated the Code of Professional Responsibility:
  • Rule 1.01: Lawyers must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
  • Rule 16.01: Lawyers must account for all money/property collected or received from a client.
  • Rule 18.01: Lawyers should not undertake legal service they are not qualified to render.
• The CBD recommended a three-year suspension and ordered Imbang to return P5,000 to Ramos.
• The IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD's findings, agreeing Imbang violated Rules 1.01, 16.01, and 18.01.
• The IBP modified the recommendation by imposing legal interest on the P5,000, starting from 1995, & an additional six-month suspension if Imbang fails to return the total amount

Court Ruling

• The Court adopted the IBP's findings with modifications.
• Lawyers must conduct themselves with honesty and integrity.
• Government lawyers are expected to be conscientious and held to a higher standard of public service.
• Government employees should devote themselves entirely to public service, prohibiting private practice.
• Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees prohibits outside employment that conflicts with official functions.
• Lawyers in government service are expected to commit full-time to their offices.
• Imbang accepted P5,000 from Ramos and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992, while connected with the PAO.
• Accepting money establishes an attorney-client relationship.
• Imbang violated the prohibition on private practice by accepting Ramos' case while a government lawyer.
• Imbang's wrongdoing was aggravated by his receipt of attorney's fees.
• The PAO provides free legal assistance to indigent litigants: Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Imbang's acceptance of attorney's fees contradicted the PAO's mission.
• Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states lawyers must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for the law.
• Lawyers must observe prohibitions, which Imbang violated by accepting cases and fees.
• Imbang's conduct fell short of the required integrity and moral character for public office.

Dishonest Acts

• Imbang failed to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses and deceived Ramos into believing otherwise.
• He collected "appearance fees" for hearings that never occurred, violating the lawyer's oath.

Conclusion

• Imbang was found guilty of violating the lawyer's oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Imbang was disbarred and his name was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
• Imbang was ordered to return P5,000 to Ramos with legal interest from 1995 within 10 days of receiving the resolution.
• Copies of the resolution were to be attached to Imbang's records, served to the IBP, and circulated to all courts.