Kruysel v. Abion, A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016

3B PROBLEM AREA IN LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS (2ND SEM A.Y.
2021 – 2022)
JUTTA KRURSEL,
CASE NAME: v.
ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION
A.C. NO. 5951 DATE: July 12, 2016
PONENTE: PER CURIAM SUBMITTED BY: Revilla, Ana
TOPIC: Lawyers’ Oath
Lawyers who are guilty of gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath
DOCTRINE:
and the Code of Professional Responsibility shall be disbarred.
FACTS
Complainant Jutta Krursel, a German national, charged respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion with
forgery, swindling, and falsification of a public document. She asks that respondent be disbarred.
Complainant alleges that she engaged the services of Abion to assist her in filing a case against
Robinsons Savings Bank - Ermita Branch land its officers, in relation to the bank's illegal
withholding/blocking of her account.
The case of "Conducting Business in an Unsafe and Unsound Manner in violation of Republic Act
No. 8791 was filed before the Monetary Board I of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas but without
Krursel's knowledge, Abion withdrew the complaint with prejudice.
Krursel was further surprised to discover two (2) Special Powers of Attorney which appear to have
her and Coleman's signature as principals.
Moreover, Abion allegedly presented a document purporting to be an Order from this Court's First
Division, resolving the case' in Krursel’s favor. The Order was purportedly signed by Atty. Virginia;
R. Soriano, "Division Clerk of the First Division of the Supreme Court."
Complainant sought the advice of Atty. Aportadera, Jr., who, in turn, wrote to Atty. Soriano inquiring
about the supposed Order. Atty. Soriano replied denying the signature as hers. She stated that the
Order did not even follow this Court's format, and that, on the contrary, the case had been
dismissed.
Krursel avers that respondent's malicious acts warrant her removal from the roster of lawyers. She
adds that she and Coleman filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City a criminal
Complaint against respondent for the unlawful acts committed against them.
3B PROBLEM AREA IN LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS (2ND SEM A.Y. 2021 – 2022)
The court tried multiple times to serve a copy of the notice of hearing to Atty. Abion to the address
she had in the record of the IBP but all the summons were returned.
The Commission on Bar Discipline deemed the case submitted for resolution. Investigating
Commissioner Peter Irving C. Corvera recommended that respondent be disbarred for fabricating
and forging Special Powers of Attorney and an order from this Court, coupled with her exaction of
money from complainant without receipt or accounting despite demands. These acts are in
culpable violation of Canon 1; Rule 1.01; Canon 16, Rule 16.01; and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
ISSUES
Whether respondent should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification, and swindling.
RULING OF THE COURT
YES.
We cannot ignore this Court's several attempts to serve a copy of the Resolution (requiring
respondent to file a comment on the Complaint for disbarment) on respondent at her address ion
record and at the different addresses provided by complainant and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, only to be returned unserved. This Court even requested the assistance of the National
Bureau of Investigation to locate respondent, but to no avail.
Respondent's apparent disregard of the judicial process cannot be tolerated. Under the
circumstances, respondent is deemed to have waived her right to present her evidence for she
cannot use her disappearance as a shield against any liability she may have incurred.
Furthermore, we agree with the Committee on Bar Discipline's finding that complainant has
sufficiently proven her allegations regarding the falsified order.
Respondent's acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as an attorney. She
violated her oath to "do no falsehood" and to "conduct [her] self as a lawyer . . . with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to; [her] clients." She also violated the following provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Respondent's transgressions are grave and serious. She abused her legal knowledge and training.
She took undue advantage of the trust reposed on her by her client. Her misconduct exhibits a
brazen disregard of her duties as a lawyer. The advocate for justice became the perpetrator of
injustice.
Aside from defrauding her client, respondent recklessly put Atty. Soriano's career in jeopardy by
fabricating an order, thus making a mockery of the judicial system. That a lawyer is not merely a
3B PROBLEM AREA IN LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS (2ND SEM A.Y. 2021 – 2022)
professional but also an officer of the court cannot be overemphasized. She owes the courts of
justice and its judicial officers utmost respect. Her conduct degrades the administration of justice
and weakens the people faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched the entire legal
profession.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Arty. Lorenza A. Abion GUILTY of gross misconduct in
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to
remove the name of Lorenza A. Abion from the Roll of Attorneys.
NOTES
.
Code of Professional Responsibility:
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.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
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.
CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his elient informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Kruysel v. Abion, A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kruysel v. Abion, A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kruysel v. Abion, A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3B PROBLEM AREA IN LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS (2ND SEM A.Y.

A.C. NO. 5951 DATE: July 12, 2016

PONENTE: PER CURIAM SUBMITTED BY: Revilla, Ana

TOPIC: Lawyers’ Oath

RULING OF THE COURT

You might also like