SUMMARY: A lawyer misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer and failed to perform his duties to his client.
FACTS: Chamelyn Agot claimed that she was invited as maid of honor to her best friend’s wedding in US. To facilitate the issuance of her US visa, Agot sought the services of Atty. Rivera who represented himself as an immigration lawyer. She paid him the amount of P350,000.00 as downpayment and agreed to pay the balance of P350,000.00 after the issuance of the US visa. However, Atty. Rivera failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed period. Worse, Agot was not even scheduled for interview at the US Embassy. It was later found that Atty. Rivera did not specialize in immigration law but merely had contact with a purported US consul who was supposed to process the US visa applications for him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rivera should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
DECISION: Yes. Atty. Rivera is SUSPENDED for 2 YEARS for violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR.
Atty. Rivera misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer, which resulted in Agot seeking his assistance to facilitate the issuance of her US visa and paying him for his legal services. Atty. Rivera’s deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; it reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Undoubtedly, Atty. Rivera’s deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession but also revealing a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.
Also, Atty. Rivera’s failure to perform his obligations which is to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in favor of complainant Agot was an inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.