The Supreme Court has ordered the disbarment of a lawyer who used his position as a Bureau of Customs director in an elaborate scheme of pretending to sell a vehicle confiscated by the bureau.              

The court found Atty. Jorge P. Monroy guilty of violating Canon II, Sections  1, 2, and 28 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and was disbarred from the practice of law after he falsely represented that his position as Director III of the Bureau of Customs  (BOC) – Financial  Services has the specific authority to sell vehicles that  have been seized by the agency.

The court ordered Monroy’s name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. It also  fined Monroy in the amount of P20,000 for his disobedience to the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).   

In July 2000, Monroy offered to sell to complainant Julieta L. Co for the amount of P1.4 million a Toyota Land Cruiser that was among the vehicles confiscated by the BOC. 

Monroy assured complainant that the transaction was legal and that official receipts will be issued. 

Complainant, having  known Monroy since high school as a trusted family  friend, got convinced to proceed with the purchase of the vehicle.   

On 18  July  2000, complainant gave Monroy a check  for  P150,000,  payable to cash.  

Three days after,  Monroy informed complainant that the vehicle  was  ready for delivery. 

Complainant  prepared a  manager’s check  for the balance of P1,250,000,  but  Monroy  insisted on cash payment, which he  personally received in  his office.  

After waiting  the  whole day, complainant was told that one signatory from the Department of Finance (DOF) had yet to sign the documents for the vehicle’s release.   

The complainant returned to Monroy’s office on 24 July  2000, but was told by Monroy that the signature of the DOF officer was still lacking.

Complainant then went with Monroy’s personal staff member to the DOF, where the complainant was informed that the documents were still in the office of an undersecretary.     

Returning  to  Monroy’s  office,  Monroy admitted to  complainant that the vehicle could no longer be released as someone ran off with the money.

He then issued a  receipt to  guarantee  the  return  of  complainant’s money.  However, despite complainant’s repeated demands for Monroy to return her money,  the latter kept on avoiding her.