SC disbars ex-customs finance director in botched sale of confiscated vehicle

The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a former director of the Financial Services of the Bureau of Customs (BoC) for pretending he was authorized to sell a confiscated vehicle, receiving P1.4 million as payment, and failing to return the money when the sale did not push through.

Stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys and ordered to pay a fine of P20,000 was Jorge P. Monroy for violations of Sections 1, 2, and 28 of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Canon II of CPRA states that “a lawyer shall, at all ties, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior.”

A summary of the SC’s ruling – which has not been uploaded to the court’s website -- issued by its public information office (PIO) stated that in July 2000, offered to sell to Julieta L. Co for P1.4 million a Toyota Land Cruiser that was among the vehicles confiscated by the BOC.

The PIO said that Monroy assured Co that the transaction was legal and that official receipts will be issued. Co agreed to Monroy when she considered a family friend.

On July 18, 2000, Co Monroy a check for P150,000 payable to cash. Three days later, Monroy informed Co that the vehicle was ready to delivery and the payment for the balance should be in cash.

After several days of waiting, Monroy told Co that the vehicle could not be released because someone ran off with the money.  Despite demands, Monroy failed to return the money paid by Co.

When Monroy started evading Co, the latter filed charges against the former for disbarment, graft, and estafa.

The Sandiganbayan found Monroy guilty of both graft and estafa under the Revised Penal Code. Monroy remained at large despite the warrant of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan.

In ordering the disbarment of Monroy for violations of the three sections of CPRA’s Canon II, the PIO said the SC pointed out that “the Court may suspend or even withdraw one’s practice of law once it is shown that the lawyer was not able to sustain the high degree of good moral character expected by the community from the members of the legal profession.”

On Monroy’s conviction for estafa, a crime involving moral turpitude, the PIO said the SC noted: “For the same (conviction) to serve as sufficient ground for disbarment, it must be shown that the conviction has already attained finality. In this case, the Court noted that other than a copy of the Sandiganbayan Decision, complainant (Co) presented no other evidence to show that the judgment has become final.”

The PIO also said:

“The Court pointed out that Monroy used his position as a BOC Director to make it appear that the transaction was legitimate by falsely representing to complainant that his position in the BOC had the specific authority to sell vehicles seized by the agency.

“He carried out the transaction inside his office at the BOC and engaged the participation of his staff members to gain complainant’s trust. He then conveniently claimed that the P1.4 million paid by complainant for the vehicle was taken from his office, and refused to return the amount.

“The Court ruled that the totality of evidence presented clearly proved that Monroy miserably failed to live up to the high moral standards required of members of the legal profession.  

“The Court held that Monroy’s blatant violation of the law, as shown by his conviction by the Sandiganbayan; his lack of remorse when complainant repeatedly begged him to return her money; and his futile attempt to use an unknown employee of the BOC as a scapegoat all demonstrate his unfitness to continue in the practice of law.

“The Court likewise took note of Monroy’s willful disregard and refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Committee on Bar Discipline when the same required him to file an answer and brief, and to attend mandatory conferences in connection with the disbarment case against him.

“Thus, the Court affirmed the P20,000 penalty imposed on him by the IBP Board of Governors.”