SEBASTISAN VS. CALIS A.C. NO. NO. 5118/314SCRA1;SEPTEMBER 5118/314SCRA1;SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 J. _____ FACTS: Sometime in November 1992, one Marilou Sebastian, herein complainant, was referred to Atty. Dorotheo Calis, herein respondent, for the latter to process all the documents needed for the former to travel to the United States of America with the consideration of P150,000.00. With the respondent’s promise to return the complainant’s money if there would be trouble with the documents for her travel. In 4 separate payments, complainant paid the entire consideration receiving, however, only 3 receipts for the payments. Respondent, Calis, provided the complainant with spurious documents which resulted for complainant to be detained in Changi Prisons upon arrival in Singapore and thereafter, the complainant was deported back to the Philippines. Upon arrival in the Philippines, the respondent promised to secure new travel documents for the complainant. However, the complainant opted to demand for the return of her money. Calis made partial payments of 15,000, 6000, and 5000 to the complainant but was unreachable when the complainant demanded for the rest of the payment. Calis also failed to attend the hearings with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) despite being issued summons and being required to answer or comment on the complaint. Therewith, the IBP recommended the disbarment of herein respondent. ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Dorotheo Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which thereby constitutes his disbarment. RULING: Yes, Atty. Calis is guilt y of violation of Canon 1, Ru le 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege carrying with it the condition of continuous good moral character. The gross misconduct of a lawyer subjects him unfit to practice law..Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In the case at bar, Calis guaranteed to secure all the necessary documents for Sebastian’s travel to the United States with the promise to return the money money if anything goes wrong with her travel. Calis’s acts of giving the complainant spurious documents constitutes deception and unlawful conduct on his part. Adding to it is respondent’s refusal to honor the summons of the IBP which reflects his unprofessional conduct. The court views Calis’s conduct and continuance in service as a threat to the administration of justice. Therefore, Calis is deemed disbarred and is ordered to immediately return the rest of the complainant’s money.
