A.C. No.

7204 March 7, 2007

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant, G.R. No. 164273 March 28, 2007

vs.
ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, Respondent EMMANUEL B. AZNAR, Petitioner,
vs.
Facts: CITIBANK, N.A., (Philippines), Respondent.

The case is a disbarment case against respondent on Facts:

the ground of gross immorality. It was alleged that sometime in
December 2004, complainant seek for legal advice from
peitioner regarding her collectibles from a travel company. Petitioner is a holder of a credit card issued by
Respondent sent Demand Letter and sometime in February respondent with credit limit of P150 000. He increased his
2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility limit to P635 000 since they have the plan to go on an Asian
of filing complaint against the travel company because the Tour. They purchased their plane tickets using said card but
latter failed to settle the accounts. That after that said meeting, upon arriving with the intention to purchase something in the
the respondent "held her arm and kissed her on the cheek countries that they went to, the said card was dishonored. They
while embracing her very tightly." also tried to use the card to purchase their return ticket but the
same was dishonored and was informed that the card was
The two met again to finalize the draft for the blacklisted. Thus they purchased their tickets in cash. Upon
complaint and while on their way home after the said meeting, returning to the Philippines, petitioner instituted a complaint
the respondent suddenly stopped the car and things went out for damages against Citibank claiming that respondent with
of hand. Thus she decided to refer the case to another lawyer. fraud and gross negligence blacklisted his card which caused
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched
reputation and social humiliation.
Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed acts are Whether or not petitioner was able to establish his
grossly immoral which would warrant the disbarment or claim against respondent.
suspension from the practice of law.
Held:
Held:
The SC held in the negative. It is basic in civil cases
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The party that
alleges the fact has the burden of proving it. Aznar in his
CANON I – x x x testimony admitted that he had no personal knowledge that his
Mastercard was blacklisted by Citibank and only presumed
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, such fact from the dishonor of his card. It is settled that in
immoral or deceitful conduct. order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of
which he complains, he must establish that such injuries
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the plaintiff – a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal
Integrated Bar. responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for
the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was
xxxx injured in contemplation of law; thus there must first be a
breach before damages may be awarded and the breach of such
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely duty should be the proximate cause of the injury. (BPI Express
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 262, 276 (1998)
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral
damages are recoverable only if the defendant has acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, or is found guilty of gross
The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of
tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but all his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton,
throughtout their legal career as lawyers belong to an exclusive reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.
and honored fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard (Equitable Banking Corp. v. Calderon, G.R. No. 156168,
the integrity of the legal profession and should adhere to the December 14, 2004, 446 SCRA 271, 276)
unwaveringly to the highest standard of morality. The
respondent admitted to the act of kissing the complainant on
the lips as evidenced as well of his asking for apology from
complainant in his text message. Regardless of the fact that the
respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but the
Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because
the respondent immediately asked for forgiveness after sensing
the annoyance of the respondent after texting him. Thus the
Court held that this is not grossly immoral nor highly
reprehensible which will warrant disbarment or suspension.
But the Court reprimanded respondent to be more prudent and
cautious.