Marilou Sebastian vs. Atty. Dorotheo Calis

7/23/2019 Marilou Sebastian vs. Atty. Dorotheo Calis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marilou-sebastian-vs-atty-dorotheo-calis 1/10

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999]

MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTEO

CALIS, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM !

For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oathas lawyer, respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.

The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar Discipline

of the nte!rated Bar of the "hilippines #B"$,[1] in its %eport, are as follows&

Complainant #'arilou (ebastian$ alle!ed that sometime in November, )**+,

she was referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary

documents reuired for complainants trip to the -(A for a fee of ne /undred

Fifty Thousand "esos #")01,111.11$.

n December ), )**+ the complainant made a partial payment of the reuired

fee in the amount of Twenty Thousand "esos #"+1,111.11$, which was received

by Ester Calis, wife of the respondent for which a receipt was issued.

From the period of 2anuary )**3 to 'ay )**4 complainant had several

conferences with the respondent re!ardin! the processin! of her travel

documents. To facilitate the processin!, respondent demanded an additional

amount of (i5ty Five Thousand "esos #"60,111.11$ and prevailed upon

complainant to resi!n from her 7ob as steno!rapher with the Commission on

/uman %i!hts.

n 2une +1, )**4, to e5pedite the processin! of her travel documents

complainant issued "lanters Development Ban8 Chec8 No. )+1+60+4 in the

amount of (i5ty Five Thousand "esos #"60,111.11$ in favor of Atty. D. Calis

who issued a receipt. After receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the

complainant copies of (upplemental to -.(. Nonimmi!rant 9isa Application

#f. )06$ and a list of uestions which would be as8ed durin! interviews.

:hen complainant inuired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former

that she will be assumin! the name ;i<ette ". Ferrer married to %oberto Ferrer,

employed as sales mana!er of 'atiao 'ar8etin!, nc. the complainant was

furnished documents to support her assumed identity.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn1




%eali<in! that she will be travellin! with spurious documents, the complainant

demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by respondent that

there was nothin! to worry about for he has been en!a!ed in the business for

uite sometime= with the promise that her money will be refunded if somethin!

!oes wron!.

:ee8s before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the

reuired fee which was paid by complainant, but the correspondin! receipt was

not !iven to her.

:hen complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the

complainant that it will be !iven to her on her departure which was scheduled

on (eptember 6, )**4. n said date complainant was !iven her passport and

visa issued in the name of ;i<ette ". Ferrer. Complainant left to!ether with2ennyfer Belo and a certain 'aribel who were also recruits of the respondent.

-pon arrival at the (in!apore nternational Airport, complainant to!ether with

2ennyfer Belo and 'aribel were apprehended by the (in!apore Airport

fficials for carryin! spurious travel documents= Complainant contacted the

respondent throu!h overseas telephone call and informed him of by her

predicament. From (eptember 6 to *, )**4, complainant was detained at

Chan!i "risons in (in!apore.

n (eptember *, )**4 the complainant was deported bac8 to the "hilippines

and respondent fetched her from the airport and brou!ht her to his residence at

>?+@A Tres 'arias (treet, (ampaloc, 'anila.%espondent too8 complainants

passport with a promise that he will secure new travel documents for

complainant. (ince complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she

demanded for the return of her money in the amount of ne /undred Fifty

Thousand "esos #")01,111.11$.

n 2une 4, )**6, 2une )> and 2uly 0, )**6 respondent made partial refunds of ")0,111.11= "6,111.11= and "0,111.11.

n December )*, )**6 the complainant throu!h counsel, sent a demand letter

to respondent for the refund of a remainin! balance of ne /undred Fourteen

Thousand "esos #"))4,111.11$ which was i!nored by the respondent.

(ometime in 'arch )**? the complainant went to see the respondent, however

his wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attendin! to business

matters.

n 'ay )**? the complainant a!ain tried to see the respondent however she

found out that the respondent had transferred to an un8nown residence

apparently with intentions to evade responsibility.



Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid by

complainant, applications for -.(.A. 9isa, uestions and answers as8ed durin!

interviews= receipts ac8nowled!in! partial refunds of fees paid by the complainant

to!ether with demand letter for the remainin! balance of ne /undred Fourteen

Thousand "esos #"))4,111.11$= which was received by the respondent.[2]

Despite several notices sent to the respondent reuirin! an answer to or comment on

the complaint, there was no response. %espondent li8ewise failed to attend the scheduled

hearin!s of the case. No appearance whatsoever was made by the respondent. [3] As a

result of the ine5plicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with

the orders of the Commission, the investi!ation a!ainst him proceeded ex parte.

n (eptember +4, )**>, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its %eport on the

case, findin! that&

t appears that the services of the respondent was en!a!ed for the purpose of

securin! a visa for a -.(.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention of 7ob

placement or employment abroad, hence it is not correct to say that the

respondent en!a!ed in ille!al recruitment.

The alle!ed proposal of the respondent to secure the -.(.A. visa for the

complainant under an assumed name was accepted by the complainant which

ne!ates deceit on the part of the respondent. Noted li8ewise is the partial

refunds made by the respondent of the fees paid by the complainant. /owever,the transfer of residence without a forwardin! address indicates his attempt to

escape responsibility.

n the li!ht of the fore!oin!, we find that the respondent is !uilty of !ross

misconduct for violatin! Canon ) %ule ).1) of the Code of "rofessional

%esponsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not en!a!e in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

:/E%EF%E, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY.

DOROTEO CALIS be SUS"ENDED as a member of the bar until he fully refunds

the fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the Commission on Bar

Discipline pursuant to %ule )3*@B, (ec. 6 of the %ules of Court. [4]

"ursuant to (ection )+, %ule )3*@B of the %ules of Court, this administrative case

was elevated to the B" Board of overnors for review. The Board in a

%esolution[5] dated December 4, )**> resolved to adopt and approve with amendment the

recommendation of the Commission. The %esolution of the Board states&

%E(;9ED to AD"T and A""%9E, as it is hereby AD"TED andA""%9ED, the %eport and %ecommendation of the nvesti!atin!

Commissioner in the above@entitled case, herein made part of this

%esolutionDecisions as Anne5 A= and, findin! the recommendation fully

supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, #$t% &'

&me'(me't that %espondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis beDISBARRED for havin!











been found !uilty of ross 'isconduct for en!a!in! in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

:e are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the B" recommendation

contained in its %esolution dated December 4, )**>, with its supportin! report.

After e5amination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we find the

resolution passed by the Board of overnors of the B" in order. :e a!ree with the

findin! of the Commission that the char!e of ille!al recruitment was not established

because complainant failed to substantiate her alle!ation on the matter. n fact she did not

mention any particular 7ob or employment promised to her by the respondent. The only

service of the respondent mentioned by the complainant was that of securin! a visa for

the -nited (tates.

:e li8ewise concur with the B" Board of overnors in its %esolution, that hereinrespondent is !uilty of !ross misconduct by en!a!in! in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct contrary to Canon ), %ule )1) of the Code of "rofessional

%esponsibility. %espondent deceived the complainant by assurin! her that he could !ive

her visa and travel documents= that despite spurious documents nothin! untoward would

happen= that he !uarantees her arrival in the -(A and even promised to refund her the

fees and e5penses already paid, in case somethin! went wron!. All for material !ain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are dis!raceful and

dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A

lawyers relationship with others should be characteri<ed by the hi!hest de!ree of !oodfaith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not

mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and 8eep

inviolable.[6] The nature of the office of an attorney reuires that he should be a person of

!ood moral character.[7] This reuisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to

the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remainin! in the practice

of law.[8] :e have sternly warned that any !ross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his

professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of

the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.[9]

t is dismayin! to note how respondent so cavalierly 7eopardi<ed the life and liberty

of complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents. /ow often have

victims of unscrupulous travel a!ents and ille!al recruiters been imprisoned in forei!n

lands because they were provided fa8e travel documents %espondent totally disre!arded

the personal safety of the complainant when he sent her abroad on false assurances. Not

only are respondents acts ille!al, they are also detestable from the moral point of

view. /is utter lac8 of moral ualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and the

administration of 7ustice.

The practice of law is not a ri!ht but a privile!e bestowed by the (tate on those who

show that they possess, and continue to possess, the ualifications reuired by law for the

conferment of such privile!e.[10] :e must stress that membership in the bar is a privile!e

burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privile!e to practice law only durin! !ood

behavior. /e can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by

7ud!ment of the court after !ivin! him the opportunity to be heard.[11]

















/ere, it is worth notin! that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the

orders of the B" and his total disre!ard of the summons issued by the B" are

contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in

removin! respondent Dorotheo Calis from the %oll of Attorneys for his unethical,

unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.

;astly, the !rant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the "))4,111.11 she

paid the respondent is in order .[12] %espondent not only un7ustifiably refused to return the

complainants money upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in holdin! on to it,

unmindful of the hardship and humiliation suffered by the complainant.

)ERE*ORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby D(BA%%ED and his name is

ordered stric8en from the %oll of Attorneys. ;et a copy of this Decision be F-%N(/ED

to the B" and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal records of

respondent. %espondent is li8ewise ordered to pay to the complainant immediately the

amount of ne /undred Fourteen Thousand #"))4,111.11$ "esos representin! the

amount he collected from her.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,

Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, !, concur !

"a#ide, r!, $!!, and Panganiban, !, on official leave.






November, 1992: Marilou Sebastian was referred to Atty.

Dorotheo Calis who promised to process all necessary

documents required for the complainant’s trip to the United

States of America for a fee of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY

THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150 000. 00). December 1, 1992: Ms.

Sebastian made a partial payment in the amount of TWENTY

THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20 000.00) which was received by

Ester Calis, wife of Atty. Calis for which a receipt was issued.

January, 1993- May, 1994: He demanded an additional

amount of SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 65 000.00)

and prevailed upon the Ms. Sebastian to resign from her job as

stenographer of the Commission on Human Rights. June 20,

1994: Ms. Sebastian issued Planters Development Bank CheckNo. 12026524 in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos

(P65,000.00) in favor of Atty. D. Calis who issued a receipt. In

return, Atty. Calis furnished Ms. Sebastian the following:

copies of Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application

(Of. 156); and, a list of questions which would be asked

during interviews. Atty. Calis informed the complainant that

she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to

Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of MatiaoMarketing, Inc. Documents were furnished to Ms. Sebastian

to support her assumed identity. Ms. Sebastian demanded

the return of her money realizing that she will be travelling

with spurious document. However, she was swayed with the

following assurances of Atty. Calis, that: There was nothing

to worry about for Atty. Calis had been engaged in the same

business for quite sometime; and, A promise that her money

will be refunded if something goes wrong. Ms. Sebastian paidthe remaining balance weeks before the her departure , but

the corresponding receipt was not given to her by Atty. Calis.

September 6, 1994: Departure date of Marilou Sebastian.

Ms. Sebastian, together with two other recruits of Atty. Calis

were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials upon

arrival at the airport. Ms. Sebastian informed Atty. Calis of

her predicament. September 6- 9, 1994 Ms. Sebastian was

detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore. September 9, 1994:Ms. Sebastian was deported back to Philippines and Atty. Calis

picked her up from the airport and brought her to the latter·s

residence. Ms. Sebastian demanded for the return of her One

Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos since she opted not to pursue

with her travel anymore despite the promise of Atty. Calis of



securing new documents for the former·s travel. Partial

refunds were made by Atty. Calis to Ms. Sebastian on the

following dates: June 4, 1996: Php 15 000. 00 June 18, 1996:

Php 6 000. 00 July 5, 1996: Php 5 000.00 December 19,

1996: Ms. Sebastian sent a demand letter through counsel, for

the refund of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (114

000.00) which was ignored by Atty. Calis. May 1997: Ms.

Sebastian found out that Atty. Calis had transferred to an

unknown residence, apparently with intentions to evade

responsibility. Ms. Sebastian filed a complaint against Atty.

Calis attaching the following: photocopies of receipt;

applications for USA visa; questions and answers asked during

interviews; acknowledgment receipts of partial payment; and,demand letter for the balance of Php 114 000.00 The

Commission on Discipline proceeded ex parte the investigation

for in spite of several notices, Atty. Calis failed to: answer or

comment on the complaint; and, attend the scheduled

hearings of the case. The process of this case is as follows: 1.

2. 3. First, Complaint was filed to IBP and the Commission on

Bar Discipline conducted an investigation through the

Investigating Committee. It was then elevated for review to theIBP Board of Governors. Lastly, Supreme Court was then

called to evaluate the IBP Board of Governor·s

recommendation, for final action.

FIRST ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Calis was engaged in illegal

recruitment. No. ́It appears that the services of the

respondent was engaged for the purpose of securing a visa for

the travel of the complainant to United State. There was nomention of job placement or employment abroad, hence it is

not correct to say that the respondent engaged in illegal

recruitment.µ The Board adopted and approved the findings of

the Investigating Commissioner. No. ́We agree with the finding

of the Commission that the charge of illegal recruitment was

not established because complainant failed to substantiate her

allegation on the matter. In fact she did not mention any

particular job or employment promised to her by therespondent. The only service of the respondent mentioned by

the complainant was that of securing a visa for the United

States.µ



SECOND ISSUE Whether or not Atty. Calis was guilty of gross

misconduct; thus, be disbarred The respondent must be

suspended. ́The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure

the U.S.A. visa for the complainant under an assumed name

was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit on the

part of the respondent. Noted likewise is the partial refunds

made by the respondent of the fees However, the transfer of

residence without a forwarding address indicates his attempt

to escape responsibility.µ paid by the complainant. ́In the

light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of

gross misconduct for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code

of Professional a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.µ Responsibility which provides that



WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY.

DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar

until he fully refunds the fees paid to him by complainant and

comply with the order of the Commission on Bar Discipline

pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6, of the Rules of Court. Rule

139-B, Section 6. Verification and service of answer. ³ The

answer shall be verified. The original and five (5) legible copies

of the answer shall be filed with the Investigator, with proof of

service of a copy thereof on the complainant or his counsel.

The Board of Governors amended the report made by the

Commission. Atty. Calis must not just be suspended but must

be DISBARRED for having been found guilty of gross

misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct. Yes. ́Herein respondent is guilty of gross

misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct contrary to Canon I, Rule 101 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the

complainant by assuring her that he could give her visa and

travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing

untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the

USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expensesalready paid, in case something went wrong. All for material

gain.µ Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are

disgraceful and dishonorable. A lawyer's relationship with

others should be characterized by the highest degree of good

faith, fairness and candor- the essence of the lawyer's oath.

The lawyer's oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow,

but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.

The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character. This requisite is not only

a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its

continued possession is also essential for remaining in the

practice of law. Respondent totally disregarded the personal

safety of the complainant when he sent her abroad on false

assurances. Not only are respondent's acts illegal, they are

also detestable from the moral point of view. His utter lack of

moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and theadministration of justice. Membership in the bar is a privilege

burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to

practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of

his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by

judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be



heard. It is worth noting that the adamant refusal of

respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP and his total

disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous

acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no

hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the

Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and

unconscionable conduct toward complainant.