In Re: Lopez

A judgment of disbarment or suspension by a competent court or disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where a Filipino lawyer is also admitted constitutes prima facie evidence of grounds for reciprocal discipline in the Philippines, provided that the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the acts enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 (deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, or willful disobedience of lawful orders); the foreign judgment may be repelled only on grounds external to its merits, specifically want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Atty. Jaime V. Lopez was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1981 and to the State Bar of California in 1988. In 1995, while practicing in California, he negotiated a $25,000.00 bodily injury settlement for a client, Jemuel C. Monte-Alegre. Lopez received the settlement funds in July 1995 but failed to notify his client promptly. He deposited the funds into a trust account at Wells Fargo Bank in August 1995, yet neither disbursed the funds to Monte-Alegre nor paid medical lienholders. By March 1996, the trust account was overdrawn by $2,047.53 and was closed in May 1996 with the settlement funds depleted. Lopez subsequently issued checks to medical providers from the trust account despite knowing or having reason to know that the account contained insufficient funds. Additionally, he failed to maintain a current address with the California State Bar, rendering him unreachable for official correspondence.

The California Disbarment Proceedings: In 1999, the State Bar Court of California served Lopez with a Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) via certified mail at his official membership address (3600 Wilshire Blvd. #910, Los Angeles, CA). The NDC enumerated five counts: (1) failure to promptly notify his client of receipt of settlement funds (Rule 4-100(B)(1)); (2) failure to maintain client funds in trust (Rule 4-100(A)); (3) misappropriation of settlement funds constituting moral turpitude (Business and Professions Code §6106); (4) issuance of bad checks to medical providers constituting moral turpitude (Business and Professions Code §6106); and (5) failure to maintain a current address with the State Bar (Business and Professions Code §6068(j)). Lopez did not file a response to the NDC. On 20 September 1999, the State Bar Court entered an Order of Default and Involuntary Inactive Enrollment. Following a status conference and submission of briefs by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, the State Bar Court issued a Decision on 23 December 1999 recommending disbarment. On 2 June 2000, the California Supreme Court ordered Lopez disbarred effective immediately and directed compliance with Rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

The Philippine Administrative Proceedings: On 3 April 2007, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno received correspondence alerting the Court to the California disbarment. The Court initially docketed the matter as A.M. No. 07-4-11-SC and referred it to the OBC. In a Resolution dated 5 August 2008, the Court converted the matter to A.C. No. 7986 and ordered Lopez to show cause why he should not be suspended or disbarred, and to submit certified true copies of the California decisions. Lopez filed motions for extension indicating his address as Block 2, Lot 1, Saint Augustine Street, Maricaban, Pasay City. However, notices sent to this address were returned unserved with notations "ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN" and "RTS Moved Out." In April 2009, Lopez filed his Comment, again listing the Pasay City address. The OBC noted that Lopez failed to submit the certified copies of the California decisions as directed and failed to designate a single permanent address.

Investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI): Pursuant to a Resolution dated 1 December 2009, the Court directed the NBI to locate Lopez. On 10 March 2011, NBI Agent Frayn M. Banawa reported that occupants of the Pasay City address (Zeny Nebrija and Elmer Tordisillas) claimed Lopez had died on 23 July 2005. However, Lopez had filed his Comment in April 2009, nearly four years after his alleged death. Agent Banawa subsequently located Lopez teaching at the Lyceum of the Philippines-Makati, College of Law, 109 L.P. Leviste Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City, and served the resolutions upon the Executive Secretary to the College of Law.

IBP Investigation: The IBP Investigating Commissioner set mandatory conferences for 6 September 2013 and 11 October 2013. Lopez failed to appear at both conferences despite notice sent to his Lyceum address. The Commissioner terminated the conference and directed Lopez to submit a verified position paper within ten days. Lopez ignored the order. The Commissioner found that Lopez's acts in California violated Canon 16, Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 (handling of client funds); Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (unlawful/dishonest conduct); Canon 7, Rule 7.03 (conduct reflecting unfitness to practice); and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (falsehoods to the court) of the CPR. The Commissioner recommended suspension for three years. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to disbarment in its Resolution dated 18 April 2015.

• Denial of Due Process in California: Lopez maintained that he had no actual knowledge of the California disciplinary proceedings because notices were sent to an outdated Los Angeles address, despite his alleged submission of notice of his Philippine address to the California State Bar. He claimed his constitutional right to due process was violated by constitutionally deficient notices.
• Denial of Misappropriation: Lopez asserted that he maintained a separate trust account and employed accountants and software to manage it. He claimed he exercised utmost care to prevent errors and that he never had checks bounce from his trust account. He attributed the allegations to the death or unavailability of key witnesses and the destruction of bank records due to the passage of time.
• General Description of Procedures: In his Comment, Lopez offered a generic description of his settlement disbursement procedures—claiming clients were contacted upon receipt of checks, shown disbursement sheets, and that funds were properly distributed—without specifically addressing the Monte-Alegre transaction or the overdraft in the trust account.

• Reciprocal Discipline: Whether a foreign judgment of disbarment against a Filipino lawyer constitutes prima facie evidence of grounds for disciplinary action in the Philippines.
• Grounds for Discipline: Whether the acts underlying the California disbarment—misappropriation of client funds, issuance of bad checks, and failure to maintain trust account balances—constitute grounds for disciplinary action under Philippine law.
• Due Process: Whether the respondent was denied due process in the Philippine proceedings or in the foreign proceedings such as to invalidate the foreign judgment as prima facie evidence.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether disbarment is the proper penalty for the respondent's professional misconduct and contumacious conduct.

• Reciprocal Discipline: A foreign judgment of disbarment or suspension constitutes prima facie evidence of grounds for reciprocal discipline in the Philippines pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Recognition of the foreign judgment requires only proof of the fact of the judgment; the official copy of the California Supreme Court decision is sufficient proof. The judgment may be repelled only on grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact—none of which were established by Lopez.
• Grounds for Discipline: The acts underlying the California disbarment constitute clear grounds for disciplinary action under Philippine law. Misappropriation of client funds and issuance of worthless checks constitute deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct, as well as violations of Canon 16 (Rules 16.01, 16.02, 16.03) regarding the safekeeping of client funds; Canon 1, Rule 1.01 prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct; and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.
• Due Process: Lopez was not denied due process in the California proceedings. The California State Bar Court served notices at his official membership address as required by law. His bare allegation that he submitted his Philippine address to the California State Bar was unsubstantiated. Moreover, the California State Bar Court specifically sanctioned him for failing to maintain a current address as required by statute. In the Philippine proceedings, Lopez was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself through multiple motions for extension and the filing of a Comment; his subsequent refusal to participate in IBP proceedings after due notice does not constitute denial of due process.
• Appropriate Penalty: Disbarment is the proper penalty. The gravity of Lopez's offenses—misappropriation of client funds, moral turpitude, and dishonesty—warrants the ultimate sanction. This is aggravated by his contumacious conduct toward the Supreme Court, OBC, and IBP, including his submission of false addresses, false claim of death, and persistent refusal to comply with lawful directives, demonstrating a lack of respect for judicial authority and unworthiness to remain a member of the bar.

• Reciprocal Discipline and Comity: When a lawyer is sanctioned in one jurisdiction, other jurisdictions where the lawyer is admitted may impose reciprocal discipline. The initial finding of wrongdoing is treated as conclusive evidence that the violation occurred, though the second jurisdiction independently determines the appropriate sanction. This protocol respects international comity while protecting the local jurisdiction's interest in maintaining ethical standards.
• Prima Facie Evidence of Foreign Judgments: Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a foreign judgment of disbarment or suspension is prima facie evidence of the ground for discipline in the Philippines if the basis includes any act constituting deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer's oath, or willful disobedience of lawful orders. The judgment may be impeached only on grounds external to its merits: want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
• Nature of Practice of Law: Membership in the bar is not a vested right but a privilege clothed with public interest. Lawyers must adhere to rigid standards of mental fitness and moral character. Disbarment, though severe, is necessary to purge the profession of unworthy members and preserve its nobility and honor.

• "When a foreign court renders a judgment imposing disciplinary penalty against a Filipino lawyer admitted in its jurisdiction, such Filipino lawyer may be imposed a similar judgment in the Philippines provided that the basis of the foreign court's judgment includes grounds for the imposition of disciplinary penalty in the Philippines." — Establishes the conditional reciprocity principle for foreign disciplinary judgments.
• "The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension." — Citation of Section 27, Rule 138, emphasizing the evidentiary weight accorded to foreign judgments.
• "Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine court, it can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e., 'want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.'" — Defines the limited scope of review permitted for foreign judgments in disciplinary proceedings.
• "Respondent's version of ghosting does not work in his favor. If at all, respondent displayed contumacious conduct and a contempt for court processes." — Characterization of the respondent's evasive tactics as aggravating circumstances.
• "The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege that is clothed with public interest. To enjoy the privilege of practicing law as officers of the Court, lawyers must adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness and maintain the highest degree of morality." — Reaffirmation of the privilege nature of law practice and the high moral standards required of practitioners.

• In re: Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera, 479 Phil. 322 (2004) — Followed for the proposition that foreign judgments of suspension or disbarment constitute prima facie evidence of grounds for disciplinary action, and that due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard in the receiving jurisdiction.
• Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano, 685 Phil. 687 (2012) — Cited for the rule that failure to return client funds upon demand gives rise to a presumption of misappropriation.
• Lemoine v. Atty. Balon, Jr., 460 Phil. 702 (2003) — Followed for the principle that failure to promptly account for funds held for a client's benefit constitutes professional misconduct.
• Wilkie v. Atty. Limos, 591 Phil. 1 (2008) — Applied for the doctrine that issuance of worthless checks indicates unfitness for the trust reposed in a lawyer and demonstrates lack of personal honesty and good moral character.
• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Cited regarding the policy of preclusion (res judicata) and the principle of comity respecting foreign judgments.
• Spouses Cuña v. Elona, A.C. No. 5314, 23 June 2020 — Followed for the proposition that disobedience of IBP orders manifests lack of respect for the institution and warrants severe sanctions.

• Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court — Provides that disbarment or suspension by a foreign jurisdiction constitutes a ground for reciprocal discipline in the Philippines if based on enumerated acts (deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, etc.), and that such foreign judgment shall be prima facie evidence of the ground.
• Section 48, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court — Cited for the rule that foreign judgments are presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and may be repelled only by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
• Canons 1, 7, 10, and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited as the specific ethical standards violated by the respondent's mishandling of client funds, dishonest conduct, and contumacious behavior.

Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.

Gesmundo, C.J., took no part.