Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Ramos V Atty Imbang

    Uploaded by

    Gen Grajo
    Atty. Jose R. Imbang was facing disbarment for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Diana Ramos hired Imbang in 1992 to file civil and criminal cases against the Jovellanoses, paying him P8,500 but receiving a receipt for only P5,000. Imbang never allowed Ramos to enter the courtroom during scheduled hearings and falsely told her the hearings were cancelled, charging her P350 each time. Ramos later learned Imbang never filed any cases and was employed by the Public Attorney's Office. The Supreme Court ruled Imbang should be disbarred for accepting money from a client while employed at the PAO, which violated the Code of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ramos V Atty Imbang

    Uploaded by

    Gen Grajo
    3K views1 page
    Atty. Jose R. Imbang was facing disbarment for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Diana Ramos hired Imbang in 1992 to file civil and criminal cases against the Jovellanoses, paying him P8,500 but receiving a receipt for only P5,000. Imbang never allowed Ramos to enter the courtroom during scheduled hearings and falsely told her the hearings were cancelled, charging her P350 each time. Ramos later learned Imbang never filed any cases and was employed by the Public Attorney's Office. The Supreme Court ruled Imbang should be disbarred for accepting money from a client while employed at the PAO, which violated the Code of

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Ramos v Atty Imbang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Jose R. Imbang was facing disbarment for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Diana Ramos hired Imbang in 1992 to file civil and criminal cases against the Jovellanoses, paying him P8,500 but receiving a receipt for only P5,000. Imbang never allowed Ramos to enter the courtroom during scheduled hearings and falsely told her the hearings were cancelled, charging her P350 each time. Ramos later learned Imbang never filed any cases and was employed by the Public Attorney's Office. The Supreme Court ruled Imbang should be disbarred for accepting money from a client while employed at the PAO, which violated the Code of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    Ramos V Atty Imbang

    Uploaded by

    Gen Grajo
    Atty. Jose R. Imbang was facing disbarment for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Diana Ramos hired Imbang in 1992 to file civil and criminal cases against the Jovellanoses, paying him P8,500 but receiving a receipt for only P5,000. Imbang never allowed Ramos to enter the courtroom during scheduled hearings and falsely told her the hearings were cancelled, charging her P350 each time. Ramos later learned Imbang never filed any cases and was employed by the Public Attorney's Office. The Supreme Court ruled Imbang should be disbarred for accepting money from a client while employed at the PAO, which violated the Code of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    32. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R.

    Imbang
    AC No. 6788; August23, 2007

    Facts : This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang for multiple
    violations of the Code of Profess ional Responsibility.
    1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil andcriminal actions against the
    spouses Roque and ElenitaJovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued
    areceipt for P5,000 only.Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases againstthe
    Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter thecourtroom and always told her to wait
    outside. He would thencome out after several hours toinform her that the hearing hadbeen cancelled
    and rescheduled. This happened six times and foreach appearance in court, respondent charged
    her P350.Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any caseagainst the
    Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO)

    ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

    HELD: YES, as per SCs decision Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and
    integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious
    of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also
    public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
    The SC supported this with three explanations:
    1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical
    Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In
    addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed inthe Constitution and
    existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and
    employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
    public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of
    profession unless authorizedby the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will
    notconflict with their official function. In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the
    complainant andissued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with thePAO. Acceptance
    of money from a client establishes an attorney-clientrelationship.
    2. Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative
    Code provides:oThe PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free
    legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.
    As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees fromthe complainant as this was
    inconsistent with the office's mission.
    3. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:o
    CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
    LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECTFOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is
    obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includesthe observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions
    blatantly violated byImbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and receivedattorney's
    fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a
    breach ofRule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because theprohibition on
    the private practice of profession disqualified him fromacting as Ramos' counsel.

    You might also like