Cleto DOCENA, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador Q. LIMON, Respondent

EN BANC
[A.C. No. 2387. September 10, 1998]
CLETO DOCENA, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR Q.

LIMON, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM
On April 15, 1982, a complaint for disbarment was filed by Cleto Docena against Atty.
Dominador Q. Limon, Sr., on grounds of malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of
attorney's oath.
It appears that respondent Atty. Limon was complainant's lawyers on appeal in Civil Case
No. 425 for Forcible Entry. While the appeal was pending before the then Court of First Instance
of Eartern Samar, Branch I, respondent required therein defendants-appellants Docena spouses to
post a supersedeas bond in the amount of P10,000.00 allegedly to stay the execution of the
appealed decision.
To raise the required, complainant Cleto Docena obtained a loan of P3,000.00 from the
Borongan, Eastern Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines;
borrowed P2,140.00 from a private individual; and applied for an agricultural loan of P4,860.00
from the Borongan, Samar Branch of the Philippine National Bank, wherein respondent himself
acted as guarantor (tsn, Session of July 8, 1983, pp. 33-34). The amount of P4,860.00 was
produced by complainant in response to respondent's letter dated September 2, 1979 (Exh. "C",
tsn, p. 26, ibid.) demanding delivery of the aforesaid amount, thus:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Docena:
I wish to remind you that today is the last day for the deposit of the balance of P4,860.00.
Atty. Batica was in court yesterday verifying whether you have deposited the said balance
and the Honorable Judge informed him that you have until today to deposit the said amount.
I wish to inform you that the Honorable Judge will be in Sta. Fe tomorrow for rural service.
We will be waiting for you tomorrow September 22, 1979, at Sta. Fe as you promised.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
On November 14, 1980, the Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar rendered a decision on
the appealed case in favor of the Docena spouses.
After receipt of said decision, complainant went to the CFI to withdraw the supersedeas
bond of P10,000.00 but he thereupon discovered that no such bond was ever posted by
respondent.
When confronted, respondent promised to restitute the amount, but he never complied with
such undertaking despite repeated demands from the Docena spouses.
In his answer the herein complaint, respondent claimed that the P10,000.00 was his
attorney's fees for representing the Docena spouses in their appeal. But this self-serving
allegation is belied by the letter (quoted above) of respondent himself demanding from the
Docena spouses the balance of P4,860.00 supposedly to be deposited in court to stay the
execution of the appealed decision of the MTC. Moreover, the fact that he had promised to return
the P10,000.00 to the Docena spouses is also an admission that the money was never his, and
that it was only entrusted to him for deposit.
After due investigation and hearing, the Intergrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to return the amount
of P8,500.00 (he had earlier paid complainant P1,500.00, but nothing more) within 1 month from
notice, and should he fail to do so, he shall be suspended indefinitely.
The Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Truly, the amount involved may be
small, but the nature of the transgression calls for a heavier sanction. The Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that:
Canon 1. x x x
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 16. x x x
Canon 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
from the client.
Respondent infringed and breached these rules. Verily, good moral character is not a
condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all
times in order to maintain one's good standing in the exclusive and honored fraternity
(Villanueva vs. Atty. Teresita Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 [1995]).
It has been said time and again, and this cannot overemphasize, that the law is not a trade
nor a craft but a profession (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983, p. 1). Its basic ideal is to render public
service and to secure justice for those who seek its aid. [Mayer vs. State Bar, 2 Call2d 71, 39 P2d
206 (1934), cited in Agpalo, id.] If it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic
ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also,
by their live, accord continuing fidelity to them. (Agpalo, id) By extorting money from his client
through deceit and misrepresentation, respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to a
level so base, so low and dishonorable, and most contemptible. He has sullied the integrity of his
brethren in the law and has, indirectly, eroded the peoples' confidence in the judicial system. By
his reprehensible conduct, which is reflective of his depraved character, respondent has made
himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys. He should be disbarred.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dominador Q. Limon, Sr. is hereby DISBARRED. The
Office of the Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is likewise ordered to return the amount of P8,500.00, the balance of the money
entrusted to him by complainant Docena, within one (1) month from the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Regalado, J., on official leave.

Cleto DOCENA, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador Q. LIMON, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Cleto DOCENA, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador Q. LIMON, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 2387. September 10, 1998]

CLETO DOCENA, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR Q.

You might also like