Scribd
Upload
720 views2 pages

Olbes Vs Deciembre Digest

This case involves a disbarment complaint filed against attorney Victor Deciembre by spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes. The Olbes allege that Deciembre filled out blank checks they had given him as collateral for a loan with amounts they did not agree to after the loan was already paid off. Deciembre was found guilty of gross misconduct and violating ethical rules. He was indefinitely suspended from practicing law for his dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful actions that revealed a basic moral flaw making him unfit to be an officer of the court.

Uploaded by

Riva Mae Cometa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
720 views2 pages

Olbes Vs Deciembre Digest

This case involves a disbarment complaint filed against attorney Victor Deciembre by spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes. The Olbes allege that Deciembre filled out blank checks they had given him as collateral for a loan with amounts they did not agree to after the loan was already paid off. Deciembre was found guilty of gross misconduct and violating ethical rules. He was indefinitely suspended from practicing law for his dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful actions that revealed a basic moral flaw making him unfit to be an officer of the court.

Uploaded by

Riva Mae Cometa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Riva Mae Cometa; Case #14

Spouses FRANKLIN and LOURDES OLBES, complainants


vs. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, respondent
AC-5365. April 27, 2005

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes due to
respondent’s willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

Facts:
Spouses Olbes allege that they were government employees working at the Central Post Office, Manila; and that
Franklin was a letter carrier and Lourdes a mail sorter. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed her application for a
loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to
respondent five PNB blank checks which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that
might be obtained in the future. Thereafter, Lourdes paid respondent the amount corresponding to the loan plus
surcharges, penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt.

Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up the blank checks entrusted to him by writing on
those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and deposited the same checks which were dishonored
upon presentment because the account is already closed. Thereafter, he filed a criminal case against complainants
for estafa and for violation of B.P. 22. Thus, complainants filed a verified petition for the disbarment of Atty.
Deciembre and charged the respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar. Petitioners added that many of their office mates suffered the same fate in their
dealings with respondent

However, respondent claimed that the checks had already been fully filled up when petitioners signed them in his
presence and argued that the loans were his private and personal transactions, which were not in any way connected
with his profession as a lawyer.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Held:
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED from the practice of law
effective immediately.

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals
who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. “A lawyer is an oath-bound
servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary
duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she] has sworn to be a fearless
crusader.”

By taking the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable
instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession.
The oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable at all times. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for
any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to
continue to be officers of the court.

In the present case, the IBP commissioner gave credence to the story of petitioners, who said that they had given
five blank personal checks to respondent at the Central Post Office in Manila as security for the P10,000 loan they
had contracted. Found untrue and unbelievable was respondent’s assertion that they had filled up the checks and
exchanged these with his cash at Quezon City and Cainta, Rizal. After a careful review of the records, we find no
reason to deviate from these findings.

The Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank
checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite respondent’s full knowledge that the
loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a
commercial document, resorted to for his material gain. Respondent even had the temerity to initiate unfounded
criminal suits against petitioners causing Franklin to be detained for three months. He is clearly guilty of serious
dishonesty and professional misconduct; an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from, and highly
unbecoming, a member of the bar.

Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable;
they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables
one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we
find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His
propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led
to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of
law effective immediately.

You might also like