Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Yap v. Buri

    Uploaded by

    Bienvenido Rivera
    Atty. Buri agreed to buy Michelle Yap's condo for 1.2M PHP, with 200k remaining unpaid. Rather than pay the balance, Atty. Buri threatened Yap with filing an estafa case. When Yap filed an administrative case, Atty. Buri failed to respond or appear. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Buri lacked integrity and moral soundness, using threats and intimidation to avoid paying her debt. Her actions violated the Lawyer's Oath and ethical canons requiring honesty and fairness. The Court upheld the sanction of a 1-year suspension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yap v. Buri

    Uploaded by

    Bienvenido Rivera
    176 views2 pages
    Atty. Buri agreed to buy Michelle Yap's condo for 1.2M PHP, with 200k remaining unpaid. Rather than pay the balance, Atty. Buri threatened Yap with filing an estafa case. When Yap filed an administrative case, Atty. Buri failed to respond or appear. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Buri lacked integrity and moral soundness, using threats and intimidation to avoid paying her debt. Her actions violated the Lawyer's Oath and ethical canons requiring honesty and fairness. The Court upheld the sanction of a 1-year suspension.

    Original Title

    13. Yap v. Buri

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Buri agreed to buy Michelle Yap's condo for 1.2M PHP, with 200k remaining unpaid. Rather than pay the balance, Atty. Buri threatened Yap with filing an estafa case. When Yap filed an administrative case, Atty. Buri failed to respond or appear. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Buri lacked integrity and moral soundness, using threats and intimidation to avoid paying her debt. Her actions violated the Lawyer's Oath and ethical canons requiring honesty and fairness. The Court upheld the sanction of a 1-year suspension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views2 pages

    Yap v. Buri

    Uploaded by

    Bienvenido Rivera
    Atty. Buri agreed to buy Michelle Yap's condo for 1.2M PHP, with 200k remaining unpaid. Rather than pay the balance, Atty. Buri threatened Yap with filing an estafa case. When Yap filed an administrative case, Atty. Buri failed to respond or appear. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Buri lacked integrity and moral soundness, using threats and intimidation to avoid paying her debt. Her actions violated the Lawyer's Oath and ethical canons requiring honesty and fairness. The Court upheld the sanction of a 1-year suspension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    13. Yap v.

    Buri

    Canon: 1

    Facts:

    Atty. Buri made an offer to buy the condo from 1.5M to 1.2M from Michelle Yap. 200k remained unpaid.
    Atty. Buri said she would pay on installment and was allowed to take possession of the condo. Later on,
    Yap demanded the balance, Atty. Buri said she would pay 5k per month but Yap disagreed. Atty. Buri
    threatened Yap that she would file Estafa case against her.

    In the criminal case, Atty. Buri alleged she found out that the sale was without consent of the husband
    and that Yap cancelled the sale and promised to return the 1M. Despite demands, Yap refused to return
    the amount. Because of the accusation, Yap filed Admin case against Atty. Buri, the latter filed no
    answer nor appear in the conference.

    Issue: Whether or not Atty. Buri violated the CPR?

    IBP-CBD

    The Commissioner recommends to impose the penalty of suspension for the period of 3 months upon
    the respondent, Atty. Grace C. Buri, and for her to pay the complainant the amount of PhP200,000.00.

    IBP-BOG

    Resolved to adopt and approve the report but modified the period of suspension to 1 year.

    Supreme Court:

    Instead of paying Yap the remaining balance of the purchase price, Buri opted to simply threaten her
    and file a criminal case against her. Obviously, this strategy was to intimidate Yap and prevent her from
    collecting the remaining P200,000.00. When given a chance to defend herself, Buri chose to stay silent,
    despite due notice. Hence, Yap's. version of the facts stands and remains uncontroverted.

    Buri's persistent refusal to pay her obligation despite frequent demands clearly reflects her lack of
    integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her knowledge of the law and clearly resorted to
    threats and intimidation in order to get away with what she wanted, constituting a gross violation of
    professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

    Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's Oath that enjoins her to support the Constitution and obey
    the laws. She also took for granted the express commands of the CPR, speci fically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
    and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR. The foregoing canons require of Buri, as a lawyer, an enduring high
    sense of responsibility and good fidelity in all her dealings and emphasize the high standard of honesty
    and fairness expected of her, not only in the practice of the legal profession, but in her personal dealings
    as well. 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.

    That Buri's act involved a private dealing with Yap is immaterial. Her being a lawyer calls for — whether
    she was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity — the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness
    and candor in her relationship with others. There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not
    only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of his
    professional capacity. Buri's being a lawyer demands that she conduct herself as a person of the highest
    moral and professional integrity and probity in her dealings with others

    Sanction: Suspension for 1 year

    You might also like