case digests part 1

A.C. No. 7204             March 7, 2007

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, Respondent

Facts:

                The case is a disbarment case against respondent on the ground of gross immorality. It was alleged that sometime in December 2004, complainant seek for legal advice from peitioner regarding her collectibles from a travel company. Respondent sent Demand Letter and sometime in February 2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility of filing complaint against the travel company because the latter failed to settle the accounts. That after that said meeting, the respondent "held her arm and kissed her on the cheek while embracing her very tightly."

                The two met again to finalize the draft for the complaint and while on their way home after the said meeting, the respondent suddenly stopped the car and things went out of hand. Thus she decided to refer the case to another lawyer.

Issue:

                Whether or not the respondent committed acts are grossly immoral which would warrant the disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

Held:

                The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON I – x x x

Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

x x x x

Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

                The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but all throughtout their legal career as lawyers belong to an exclusive and honored fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession and should adhere to the unwaveringly to the highest standard of morality. The respondent admitted to the act of kissing the complainant on the lips as evidenced as well of his asking for apology from complainant in his text message. Regardless of the fact that the respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but the Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because the respondent immediately asked for forgiveness after sensing the annoyance of the respondent after texting him. Thus the Court held that this is not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible which will warrant disbarment or suspension. But the Court reprimanded respondent to be more prudent and cautious.

G.R. No. 164273             March 28, 2007

EMMANUEL B. AZNAR, Petitioner,

vs.

CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines), Respondent.

Facts:

                Petitioner is a holder of a credit card issued by respondent with credit limit of P150 000. He increased his limit to P635 000 since they have the plan to go on an Asian Tour. They purchased their plane tickets using said card but upon arriving with the intention to purchase something in the countries that they went to, the said card was dishonored. They also tried to use the card to purchase their return ticket but the same was dishonored and was informed that the card was blacklisted. Thus they purchased their tickets in cash. Upon returning to the Philippines, petitioner instituted a complaint for damages against Citibank claiming that respondent with fraud and gross negligence blacklisted his card which caused mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation and social humiliation.

Issue:

                Whether or not petitioner was able to establish his claim against respondent.

Held:

                The SC held in the negative. It is basic in civil cases that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The party that alleges the fact has the burden of proving it. Aznar in his testimony admitted that he had no personal knowledge that his Mastercard was blacklisted by Citibank and only presumed such fact from the dishonor of his card. It is settled that in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff – a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law; thus there must first be a breach before damages may be awarded and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury. (BPI Express Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 262, 276 (1998)

                In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. (Equitable Banking Corp. v. Calderon, G.R. No. 156168, December 14, 2004, 446 SCRA 271, 276)