Lawyer sued for estafa - G.R. No. 173844

G.R. No. 173844

"x x x.


  In the instant case, the Secretary of Justice found sufficient evidence to indict petitioner.  It was adequately established by DBP and found by the Secretary of Justice that the funds would not have been released pursuant to the subsidiary loan agreement if HSLBI had no sub-borrowers/Investment Enterprises to speak of.  As it turned out, not only were the collaterals submitted inexistent, all the purported sub-borrowers/Investment Enterprises were also fictitious and inexistent.  In fact, the signatures of the sub-borrowers and the supporting documents submitted to DBP by petitioner and her co-respondents were all forged.  The findings of probable cause against petitioner was based on the document she issued entitled “Opinion of Counsel to the Participating Financial Institution,” to wit:

                    xxx

               In connection therewith and in my capacity as such legal counsel for the PFI, I have reviewed all pertinent laws, rules and regulations of the Republic of the Philippines, and examined the originals or copies, photocopied, certified or otherwise identified to my satisfaction, of the Agreement, the promissory note executed by the PFI (the ‘Note’), the Deed of Assignment, and such documents, agreements, records and matters pertaining to PFI and IE as I have considered necessary or desirable for the opinions hereinafter expressed.

   Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that:

               1. PFI and IE are duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the Philippines, and have their principal offices at the addresses indicated in the Agreement and in other documents submitted by the PFI and IE and are registered or qualified to do business in the jurisdiction where such registration or qualification is necessary.

               2. PFI and IE have full legal right, power and authority to carry on their present business, to own their properties and assets, to incur the obligations provided for in the Agreement, the Note, the Deed of Assignment, and any other documents pertinent or relevant thereto and to execute and deliver the same and to perform and observe the terms and conditions thereof.

               3. All appropriate and necessary corporate and legal actions have been taken by PFI and/or the IE to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement, the Note, the Deed of Assignment, and any other documents relevant or pertinent thereto.

               xxx     

               5. All consents, licenses, approvals and authorizations, and all declarations, filings and registrations necessary for the execution, delivery, performance, validity or enforceability of the Agreement, the Note and the Deed of Assignment have been obtained by PFI and/or the IE and are in full force and effect.

               6. To the best of my knowledge after due inquiry, except as disclosed by PFI in writing to DBP prior to the date of the Agreement, there is no litigation, tax claim, proceeding or dispute, pending or threatened, against or affecting the PFI or its properties, the adverse determination of which might adversely affect the PFI’s financial condition or operations or impair its ability to perform its obligations under the Agreement, the Note, or the Deed of Assignment, or any other instrument or agreement required thereunder.

               xxx

               Although this opinion is dated January 28, 1999, you may rely on the correctness of the opinion expressed herein on and as of the date of the initial Availment under the Agreement.[22]

           It is evident therefore that petitioner’s opinion was instrumental in the deceit committed against DBP.  As a lawyer and in-house legal counsel of HSLBI, it is highly doubtful that she would have affixed her signature without knowing that there were defects in those documents.

          As aptly found by the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor:

            xxx

                Insofar as respondent Atty. Ligaya P. Cruz is concerned, her claim of innocence is difficult to sustain.  Being the wife of respondent Benjamin J. Cruz and a lawyer at that, she should have refrained or inhibited from rendering an opinion that is totally in contravention of what had actually transpired.  Her legal opinion that the forty (40) loan applicants are legally existing and in good standing necessarily caused damage and injury to complainant DBP.  As the wife of then president of HSLBI, her having an in-depth knowledge of the operations and transactions appurtenant to the bank including, but not limited to, the inexistent investment enterprises is not remote.[23] (Emphasis and underline supplied) 


          Whether or not there was negligence on the part of DBP is of no moment. Petitioner cannot conveniently blame DBP for allegedly not double-checking the documents submitted by HSLBI because by affixing her signature on these documents and negotiating the subsidiary loan agreement on behalf of fictitious sub-borrowers/Investment Enterprises, she actively represented that these entities were indeed existing and eligible for the loan.   

          Likewise, she cannot use as a defense the flip-flopping resolutions of the Secretary of Justice.  The amendments in the resolutions does not mean that there was grave of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Justice.  If at all, it is indicative of the fact that the Office of the Secretary of Justice carefully studied and reviewed the facts of the case in arriving at its final resolution.
x x x."

law and justice foundation,law and justice symbol,law justice and morality,law or justice 1988,relationship between law and justice,difference between law and justice,law and justice careers,law and justice essay law and justice foundation,law and justice symbol,law justice and morality,law or justice 1988,relationship between law and justice,difference between law and justice,law and justice careers,law and justice essay