Sunday, October 7, 2012

Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata, AC 7204, 7 March 2007

Facts:

Sometime on 1st week of December 2004 complainant, Cynthia Advincula, seek the legal advice of the respondent, Atty. Macabata, regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. As promised, he sent Demand Letter dated December 11, 2004 to the concerned parties. 

On February 10, 2005, the two met at Zensho Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss the possibility of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours because they did not settle their accounts as demanded. After the dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she is about to step out of the car, respondent hold her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly.

Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the morning, she met respondent at Starbucks coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in Court. After the meeting, respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they met. Along the way, complainant was wandering why she felt so sleepy where in fact she just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of Felipe St., in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she was almost restless respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold her face and kissed her lips while the other hand was holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of shocked succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately manage to go out of the car.

In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to respondent informing him that she decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back the case folder from him. The communications transpired was recorded in her cellular phone and read as follows:

Sent by complainant
At 5:33:46 pm
- forget the case. I decided to refer it with other lawyer
replied by respondent
at 6:16:11 pm
- "does this mean I can not c u anymore"
(Does this mean I cannot see you
anymore)
sent by complainant
at 6:17:59 pm
- I feel bad. I can’t expect that u will take advantage of the situation.
Follow-up message
Sent by complainant
At 6:29:30 pm
- wrong to kiss a girl especially in the lips if you don’t have relationship with her.
Replied by respondent
At 6:32:43 pm
- "I’m veri sri. It’s not tking advantage of the situation, 2 put it rightly it s an expression of feeling. S sri" (I’m very sorry. Its not taking advantage of the situation, to put it rightly it is an expression of feeling)
Follow up message
by respondent
at 6:42:25 pm
- I’m s sri. Il not do it again. Wil u stil c me s I can show u my sincerity" (I’m so sorry. I’ll not do it again. Will you still see me so I can show you my sincerity)

On the following day, March 7, 2005 respondent sent another message to complainant at 3:55:32 pm saying "I don’t know wat 2 do s u may 4give me. "Im realy sri. Puede bati na tyo." (I don’t know what to do so you may forgive me. I’m really sorry. Puede bati na tayo).

Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another message was received by her at 4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. I’m really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me." (Ano ka ba. I’m really sorry. Please next time behave na ko), which is a clear manifestation of admission of guilt.

In his answer, respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal services to the complainant; that he met with complainant on 10 February 2005 and 6 March 2005, to discuss the relevant matters relative to the case which complainant was intending to file against the owners of Queensway Travel and Tours for collection of a sum of money; that on both occasions, complainant rode with him in his car where he held and kissed complainant on the lips as the former offered her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt Avenue, where he dropped off the complainant, was a busy street teeming with people, thus, it would have been impossible to commit the acts imputed to him.

By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that: 1) there was a criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed by complainant against respondent pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City; 2) the legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since she remains married to a certain Jinky Toriana because the civil case for the nullification of their marriage was archived pursuant to the Order dated 6 December 2000 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Maburao, Occidental Mindoro; 3) the complainant was living with a man not her husband; and 4) the complainant never bothered to discuss respondent’s fees and it was respondent who always paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a restaurant.
A hearing was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) at the IBP Building, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, on 26 July 2005. On 30 September 2005, Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa submitted his Report and Recommendation, recommending the imposition of the penalty of one (1) month suspension on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Thereafter, the IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2006-117 dated 20 March 2006, approving and adopting, with modification, the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

Issue:
Whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

Held:

The Court citing the text messages come to the conclusion that because right after the complainant expressed her annoyance at being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message, respondent immediately extended an apology to complainant also via cellular phone text message. The exchange of text messages between complainant and respondent bears this out.

Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or a more remote place where he could freely accomplish the same.

All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondent’s acts are not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.
Complaint for disbarment is dismissed but respondent is reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in his dealing with his clients.

________________________________
Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/A.C.%20No.%207204.htm

No comments:

Post a Comment