ETHICS DEC 4.pdf

8/13/2019 ETHICS DEC 4.pdf

1/24

IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO. FLORA QUINGWAvs. ARMANDO PUNO,

LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; REINSTATEMENT; CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED,CASE AT BAR. Where the petitioner has striven to lead and has led a model andexemplary life despite the hardships undergone by him and his family, and his exemplaryconduct, since his disbartment is attested by public officials and civic organizations, in whichhe has served as officer, of Zamboanga City; and considering that the complainant has

expressed no objection to his reinstatement in the practice of the law, provided saidrespondent supports his child by the aforesaid complainant, to which condition respondent hasexpressly agreed; and considering that this Court is now convinced that said respondent hasevidenced his moral reform and willingness to atone for the misconduct that led to hisexclusion from the bar, and will endeavor in the future to lead an upright and irreproachablelife, assiduously avoiding occasion to bring the profession into disrepute,respondent Punoshould be reinstated in the practice of the law as a member of the PhilippineBar.

FACTS: Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint charging Armando

Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct .Complainant is an educated woman, having been a public school teacherfor a number of years. The respondent took her to the Silver MoonHotel on June 1, 1958, signing the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A.Puno," and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her on thepromise of marriage. Complainant submitted to respondent's plea forsexual intercourse because of respondent's promise of marriage and notbecause of a desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and mutualpassion. Complainant gave birth to a baby boy supported by acertified true copy of a birth certificate and to show how intimate therelationship between the respondent and the complainant was, thelatter testified that she gave money to the respondent whenever heasked from her.

The respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint,and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do notconstitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25,Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.

ISSUE:Whether or not Atty. Puno should be disbarred/suspended.

HELD:YES. One of the requirements for all applicants for admission tothe Bar is that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Courtsatisfactory evidence of good moral character(Section 2, Rule 138 ofthe Rules of Court). It is essential during the continuance of thepractice and the exercise of the privilege to maintain good moralcharacter. When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enoughthat he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue andovercome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he stillmaintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times isexpected of him. With respect to the special defense raised by therespondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant that theallegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for


2/24

disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated insection 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settledrule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment orsuspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power ofcourts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the courtover its officers cannot be restricted. Times without number, ourSupreme Court held that an attorney will be removed not only formalpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for grossmisconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the

privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. Section 27, Rule138 of the Rules of court states that:

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office asattorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other grossmisconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of hisconviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of theoath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for awilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptlyor wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authorityso to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,

either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutesmalpractice.

The respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thusdisregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed,it is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of lawmust conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards ofmorality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:

The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to theprofession of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either

moral character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold thehonor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not onlythe law but the administration of justice.

Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as aconsequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll ofAttorneys.


3/24

PILAR ABAIGAR,complainant,vs.DAVID D.C. PAZ,respondent.

Pilar Abaigar filed this administrative case for disbarment against David D. C. Paz, a memberof the Philippine Bar.

Complainant sought the aid of a legal counsel regarding her divorce case filed by her husbandin the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A.; that she called on thetelephone the office of Congressman Bagatsing in Manila; that the respondent David

D.C. Paz, answered the telephone call and volunteered his legal services; that believing thatthe respondent had the necessary legal experience, the complainant confided her legalproblems to him; that after the termination of the divorce case, the respondent becameexceedingly friendly with the complainant and started to profess his love for her; that at thestart, the complainant was hesitant in continuing the cordial relations between her and therespondent but the respondent made her believe that although he was living with anotherwoman, his relations with said woman were no impediment; that the respondent convinced thecomplainant that he had been compelled to contract a civil marriage with the woman and thatsince it was not a marriage under the church laws, it was no bar for him to get married underthe church laws with the complainant; that the respondent proposed marriage to thecomplainant; that believing in his good faith, the complainant accepted the proposal of the

respondent; that sometime in the latter part of November 1970, an application for the issuanceof a marriage license to the complainant and the respondent was made and executed; thatthereafter, the respondent convinced the complainant that since they were going to getmarried anyway, they should act as husband and wife; that because of the confidence whichthe complainant reposed upon the respondent, she reluctantly acceded to said demands; thatas a result of their being together, the complainant became pregnant but due to causesbeyond her control, the pregnancy was lost; that sometime in the third week of April 1971, oneVirginia Paz was introduced to the complainant by the respondent; that said Virginia Paz wasthe woman previously referred to by the respondent as his wife with whom he had contracteda forced civil marriage; that said Virginia Paz, in the course of the meeting, informed thecomplainant that there had been actually two marriages between Virginia Paz and the

respondent, one under the civil law and one under the church law ; that upon beingconfronted by the complainant, the respondent made no explanation whatsoever and merelykept silent; that since that time, the respondent had done nothing to make amends for havingdeceived the complainant and for having taken advantage of her; and that the complainanthas no other recourse but to ask for the disbarment of the respondent who is a memberof the Philippine Bar and an officer of the courts of justice.

In his answer filed on June 10, 1971, the respondent denied having had any illicitrelations with the complainant and alleged that when the complainant called bytelephone Congressman Ramon D. Bagatsing, the respondent advised complainant tocome to the office; that on the next day when the complainant came to the office ofCongressman Bagatsing, she was at first referred to Atty. Geronimo Flores of the Legal

Assistance Service to handle the case; that two or three days thereafter, the complainantrequested the respondent to personally handle her case; that on October 30, 1970, therespondent prepared a letter to complainant's husband, Samuel L. Navales, which letter wassigned by Congressman Bagatsing; that sometime in the latter part of October 1970, thecomplainant borrowed from the respondent the sum of P200.00 to complete thepayment for the hospitalization and treatment of her brother, Eric, at the Makati MedicalCenter; that as an act of pity, the respondent gave her the loan ; that after the election fordelegates to the Constitutional Convention in November 1970, the complainant called at theresidence of the respondent and asked help in filing a case against the assailant of her brotherwho was stabbed in Olongapo City; that the wound sustained by complainant's brother was


4/24


5/24

and complications of a second marriage for both of them. She could have easily asked alawyer for advice on the matter. Complainant's own neighbor in Mandaluyong, Rizal, is alawyer by the name of Atty. Paler whose wife testified on her behalf. According to Mrs. Paler,her husband and complainant used to converse (p. 18, t.s.n., November 23, 1971). In theseconversations, complainant could have asked, perhaps in a casual manner, Mrs. Paler'shusband as to the legal effects of a divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen or the effectsof a marriage brought about through the use of force and intimidation in order to settlewhatever doubts she had in her mind.

"The truth, however, of the matter is that complainant did not even have to consult alawyer to know that she could not legally marry respondent . It is of no little significancethat some persons utilized by complainant as witnesses on her behalf because of theirsupposed knowledge of her relations with respondent, were themselves aware that divorce isnot recognized in this country. Thus Mrs. Paler categorically stated that she knew for afact that divorce obtained abroad is not recognized in the Philippines (p. 19, t.s.n.,November 23, 1971). The same admission was elicited from Fr. Troy de los Santos, anotherwitness for the complainant. Fr. de los Santos who used to be her spiritual adviser admitted atone point of his testimony that divorce obtained abroad cannot be recognized in thePhilippines insofar as state laws are concerned and complainant knew about this (pp. 33-34,t.s.n., November 23, 1971). Thus, the Jesuit priest declared under cross-examination:

'QDo you know that complainant's husband is still alive?

AYes.

QUp to the present?

AYes.

QDo you know that divorce is not recognized in the Philippines?

AI know, but the church does not recognize divorce.

QHow about the State, do you know that the State recognize divorce?

AAs far as my knowledge, I do not think that our laws permit divorce.'

Continuing with his testimony, Fr. de los Santos stated:

'QDid not the fact that complainant's husband is still alive and that divorce is not recognized inthe Philippines be considered an impediment to complainant's marriage to anyone?

AYes.

QDid you inform her so?

AShe knows about that.' (pp. 33, 34, t.s.n., id.)

"Again, granting that complainant did not actually comprehend to existence of a legalbar to her remarriage, 'not being steeped in the intricacies of the law', just the mere

realization that both respondent's wife and her own husband being still alive wasenough to stir her mind and to impel her to make her own investigation. She could have,for instance, made discreet inquiries as to who was the woman respondent was married toand verified his claim whether he was forced into the marriage. Or, perhaps, she could simplyhave asked Congressman Bagatsing about respondent's personal status. After all, she wascompetent enough to prepare, without anyone's help her own affidavit, Exhibit 'A', andresourceful enough to make research in the Supreme Court's Library on the subject ofdisbarment (pp. 63, 89, t.s.n., November 18, 1971)

"What conclusion then can a reasonable mind draw from the given premises? Eithercomplainant was so helplessly naive as to be beguiled by respondent's blandishments,or, comprehending fully the legal impossibility of the fulfillment of his marriage


6/24

proposals, she unconditionally laid herself prostrate to his charms, too much enamored ofhim to care about anything else. For, as philosopher Blaise Pascal has so pithily stated of theprofundity of human love, 'love has reasons that reason cannot explain.'Since complainantcannot hide behind the camouflage of innocence, considering her intellectual capacity andeducational background, no other conclusion is possible except that she voluntarilysubmitted to sexual intimacy with respondent without entertaining any illusion or hopeof sublimating the illicit relations by legal union.

"The question is intriguing whether respondent ever made vehement protestations of loveand actually made an offer of marriage to complainant. If there was, the evidenceadduced does not clearly show. Complainant asserted that she had evidence in the formof love letters and the marriage application formshowing respondent's sustained courtshipand offer of marriage. However, such purported documents were not presented,complainant making the excuse that respondent tricked her into giving him theenvelope containing the evidence. Such explanation, however, staggers human credulityconsidering that the supposed documents were vital to establish the case. It is simplypreposterous that she would easily part with the documents and give them to no other thanthe respondent himself. Be that as it may, if respondent had made an offer of marriage, it isnot clearly established that complainant's submission to his sexual desires was not on accountof the offer but for the gratification of her mundane human longings.

"The next question is whether there was sexual intimacy between complainant andrespondent.Complainant testified that she acceded to his proposal that they live as husbandand wife and as a matter of fact they had three sexual intercourses that took place in theTower Hotel and Singian Clinic in Manila and in the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City. While there isno proof that sexual intimacy took place in Singian Clinic except her testimony, her allegationthat they had trysts at the Tower Hotel and Sulo Hotel was supported by the guest cards atsaid hotels, Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. Notwithstanding respondent's denial that the 'Mrs.' stated inthe entry in said guest cards was a 'good-time' woman, not the complainant, common sensewill tell us that complainant could not have known that respondent lodged in saidhotels on those particular dates unless she was the woman whom respondent broughtthere.On this score, we are inclined to believe that evidence has been sufficiently adduced to

establish that intimacy between complainant and respondent took place once in the TowerHotel and once in the Sulo Hotel. As the Honorable Court has stated, when the lawyer'sintegrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges againsthim; he must meet the issues and overcome the evidence for the relator and to showproof that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity which at alltimes he is expected of him (Quingwa vs. Puno, Adm. Case No. 389, Feb. 28, 1967; 19SCRA 439). Insofar as this point is concerned, the evidence of the complainant as to the tryststhey had in the two hotels has not been met and overthrown by respondent." 4

Upon considering the report and recommendation filed by the Solicitor General, this Court, ina resolution dated July 29, 1972, resolved to require the Solicitor General to file thecorresponding complaint against the respondent, David D.C. Paz, pursuant to Section 5 of

Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court.5On September 4, 1975, the Solicitor General filed the corresponding complaint against DavidD.C. Paz praying that the respondent be suspended for a period of at least six months fromthe practice of law, with a warning that similar transgressions in the future will be dealt withmore severely. llcd

Meanwhile the complainant sent a verified letter-petition dated March 29, 1974 to the thenChief Justice Querube C. Makalintal wherein the complainant asked this Court to look into thesuspicious activities of a certain Rodolfo del Prado, who allegedly in connivance with therespondent, David D.C.Paz, made her sign an affidavit prejudicial to her interest. Among otherallegations, the complainant stated in her verified complaint the following:
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/26323?search=%28Abaigar+vs+Paz%29#footnotes


7/24


8/24

MARIA ELENA MORENO,complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA,respondent.

Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta for deceit and nonpayment

of debts.

The second cause of action involved Araneta's nonpayment of debts in the amount ofP11,000. Moreno alleged that sometime in October 1972, Araneta borrowed P5,000 fromher, purportedly to show to his associates, with the assurance that he would return thesaid amount within the shortest possible time. Again in May 1972, Araneta borrowedP6,000 for the same purpose and with the same assurance. Thereafter, since he failed tomake good on both promises, Moreno sought repayment in the aggregate amount ofP11,000. Araneta issued two Bank of America checks in her favor, the first dated 30 June1972 for P6,000, and the other dated 15 July 1972 for P5,000. However, when Moreno triedto encash the checks, the same were dishonored and returned to her marked "Account

Closed." She referred the matter to a lawyer, who sent Araneta a demandletter. Araneta, however, ignored the same.

In his defense, Araneta claimed it was in fact Moreno who sought to borrow P2,500 from him.To accommodate her, he allegedly endorsed to her the Treasury Warrant in question, worthP2,177, which he received from Lira, Inc., as part of his attorney's fees, and gave her anadditional P323 in cash. aATCDI

Araneta also denied borrowing any amount from Moreno. He admitted that he issuedthe two undated checks in her favor, but maintains that he had no intention ofnegotiating them.He avers that he gave them to Moreno, allegedly upon her request, only so

she could show the bank where she was working that she "had money coming toher." Araneta further claims that he warned her that the checks belonged to the unusedportion of a closed account and could not be encashed. To protect himself, he asked thecomplainant to issue a check in the amount of P11,000 to offset the two "borrowed" checks.The respondent offered this check in evidence.

Moreno, however, contended2that this check for P11,000 "belonged" to the PhilippineLeasing Corporation, which she managed when her father passed away. She claimed shesigned the check in blank sometime in 1969 when she fell seriously ill and gave themto Araneta who was then helping her in the management of the corporation. She concludedthat Araneta falsely filled up the check "in a desperate bid to turn the tables on her."3

On 01 December 1972, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, reportand recommendation.4

The case was first set for hearing on 22 January 1973 at nine o'clock in the morning, when thecomplainant and her counsel appeared. Araneta was absent despite due notice. Upon motion,however, of Moreno, and to give the respondent a chance to defend himself, the hearing wasreset to 23 and 24 January 1973, both at nine o'clock in the morning. Service of the notice forthe new dates of hearing were effected to the respondent through a certain Mely Magsipoc on22 January 1973.5On 23 January 1973,Araneta once more did not appear, so the case wascalled again the following day, 24 January 1973.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnotes


9/24

In the absence of respondent Araneta, an ex-parte hearing was conducted on 24 January1973 with the complainant, Moreno, taking the stand.6On 27 February1973, Araneta appeared for the scheduled hearing, only to ask for a postponement to preparehis defense.7No further hearings appear to have been conducted thereafter. A hearing isshown to have been scheduled on 28 May 1973, however, on said date, Araneta filed a jointmotion for postponement with the conform ofMoreno's lawyer, as he, Araneta, was "earnestlypursuing a possible clarification of complainant's basic grievance."

Thereafter, nothing was heard from respondent Araneta. On 14 September 1988, records of

the case were forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B ofthe Rules of Court. Two days later, the Commission notified8both parties of a hearing to beheld on 2 November 1988, on which date neither of the parties nor the complainant's counselappeared despite due notice. It appears that notice could not be served on Araneta, as heno longer resided in his indicated address, and his whereabouts were unknown. Aninquiry9made at his IBP chapter yielded negative results. The Commission reset the hearingto 18 November 1988 at two o'clock in the afternoon.10Again on this date, none of theparties appeared. Thus on the basis of the evidence so far adduced, the case was submittedfor resolution on such date.11

On 28 December 1988, IBP Commissioner Concepcion Buencamino submitted her

Report,12which reads in part:

The evidence of the complainant was not formally offered in evidence. Be that as it may, it isworthwhile considering. The "stop payment" of Treasury Warrant No. B-02997354 was an actof Lira, Inc. and not that of the respondent. There was a subpoena issued for the appearanceof Lilia Echaus, alleged President of Lira, Inc. and Simplicio Uy Seun, the allegedSecretary/Treasurer of Lira, Inc. to explain about why the "stop payment" of the treasurywarrant was done but neither witness appeared (as evidenced by the records) before theOffice of the Solicitor General to testify. At the dorsal portion of Exh. "B," the photocopy of theTreasury Warrant is a signature which complainant claims to be that of the respondentbeneath which is the word "President" and above the signature are the words Lira, Inc. but an

ocular examination of said signature in relation to the signature on the checks Exhibits "G" and"H" do not show definitely that they were the signatures of one and the same person, so thereis no basis to form the conclusion that the respondent did sign the treasury warrant aspresident of Lira, Inc. The testimony of the complainant was merely that [the] same treasurywarrant was given to her by Atty. Araneta, which she deposited [in] her account. There is noevidence to prove that she saw him sign it.

There is no evidence of a letter of the complainant informing the respondent about the"stop payment" or even any written demand by the complainant to the respondent thatthe payment of the treasury warrant having been "stopped" he should reimburse herwith what he received as consideration for this check.

Same considered, there is no cause to fault the respondent for the first cause of action.

On the other hand, the respondent admits having issued the two checks, one for P5,000.00and the other for P6,000.00 to the complainant for her to show to her creditors that money wascoming her way, when in fact he is presumed to have been aware when he issued saidchecks that his account with the bank against which [these] checks were drawn was alreadyclosed, as was discovered from the fact that the checks were dishonored for said reason.

Even disregarding the complainant's evidence and considering the answer of the respondent,the act of the respondent in issuing the two checks, one for P5,000.00 and the other for
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnotes


10/24

P6,000.00 which he gave to the complainant for her to show to her creditors that money wascoming her way, when there was none and the respondent knew such fact was an act ofconnivance of the respondent with the complainant to make use of these useless commercialdocuments to deceive the public. However beneficial it may have been to the complainant, thisact of the respondent as a lawyer is abhorrent and against the exacting standards of moralityand decency required of a member of the Bar.

The personal actuations of a member of the bar the like of which was, as in this case,committed by the respondent, belittles the confidence of the public in him and reflects upon his

integrity and morality. In the Bar, moral integrity as a virtue is a necessity which therespondent lacks.

The above considered, it is respectfully recommended that as a lesson the respondentbe suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months arising from hisirresponsible conduct as a member of the bar to take effect upon notice by him of thedecision of suspension.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted13the above report, but increased its recommendedperiod of suspension from three months to six months.

Over ten years later, on 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez,transmitted14the records of this case back to this Court pursuant toRule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) ofthe Rules of Court.15On 8 July 2003, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed aReport16regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of aResolution17from this Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for having beenconvicted by final judgment of estafathrough falsification of a commercial document. TheResolution, which was attached to the report, states:

L-46550 (Ernesto S. Araneta vs. Court of Appeals, et al.) Considering that the motion ofpetitioner Ernesto S. Araneta for reconsideration of the resolution of September 16, 1977which denied the petition for review on certiorariof the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-

G.R. No. 18553-R which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manilaconvicting the said petitioner of the crime of estafathru falsification of commercial document,was denied in the resolution dated October 17, 1977 of the Second Division of this Court forlack of merit, which denial is final, the Court Resolved: (a) to SUSPEND petitioner ErnestoS. Araneta from the practice of law and (b) to require the said petitioner to SHOW CAUSEwithin ten days from notice why he should not be disbarred.

Verification conducted by the Office of the Bar Confidant revealed that the above case hadbeen archived on 20 November 1992.

It therefore appears that in the intervening time between herein respondent's last filedpleading dated 28 May 1973, when he sought a postponement of the scheduled hearing onthis case to settle matters amicably between himself and Moreno, and thepresent, Araneta had been found guilty and convicted by final judgment of a crimeinvolving moral turpitude, and indefinitely suspended.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of Commissioner Buencamino. However, wedisagree with the penalty sought to be imposed.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnotes


11/24

Whether or not the complainant sufficiently proved that Araneta failed to pay his debtsis irrelevant, because by his own admission, the respondent issued two checks in favorof Moreno knowing fully well that the same were drawn against a closed account. And thoughBatas Pambansa Blg. 22 had not yet been passed at that time, the IBP correctly found this act"abhorrent and against the exacting standards of morality and decency required of a memberof the Bar," which "belittles the confidence of the public in him and reflects upon his integrityand morality."

Indeed, in recent cases, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross

misconduct,18as the effect "transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved inthe transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates isnot only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public" since the circulation ofvalueless commercial papers "can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce,injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberatelyreneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary toaccepted and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals."19

Thus, we have held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of theissuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for

the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moralturpitude.20

In Co v. Bernardino21and Lao v. Medel,22we held that for issuing worthless checks, alawyer may be sanctioned with one year's suspension from the practice of law, or asuspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.23

In the instant case, however, herein respondent has, in the intervening time, apparently beenfound guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a crimeinvolving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended. AIECSD

Moral turpitude "includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, orgood morals."24It involves "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private dutieswhich a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted andcustomary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,honesty, modesty, or good morals."25

Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this caselikewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty.

In fact, we have long held26that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by finaljudgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment

Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,27"[t]he review of respondent's conviction no longerrests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborateargument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as amember of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himselfunfit to protect the administration of justice."28

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta is hereby DISBARRED and hisname is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.Let a copy of this Decision beentered in the respondent's record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be servedon the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/512?search=%28Moreno+vs+Araneta%29#footnotes


12/24

circulation to all courts in the country. SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO SORIANO,complainant, vs. Atty. MANUEL DIZON,respondent.

Before us is a Complaint-Affidavit1for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon, filed byRoberto Soriano with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines (IBP). Complainant alleges that the conviction of respondent for a crimeinvolving moral turpitude, together with the circumstances surrounding the conviction,violates Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; andconstitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of theRules of Court.

Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit his Answer to the Complaint, the CBD issued aNotice dated May 20, 2004, informing him that he was in default, and that an ex-partehearing

had been scheduled for June 11, 2004.4After that hearing, complainant manifested that hewas submitting the case on the basis of the Complaint and its attachments. 5Accordingly, theCBD directed him to file his Position Paper, which he did on July 27, 2004.6Afterwards, thecase was deemed submitted for resolution.

On December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa rendered her Report andRecommendation, which was later adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in itsResolution No. XVI-2005-84 dated March 12, 2005.

In his Complaint-Affidavit, Soriano alleged that respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility; and that the conviction of the latter for frustrated

homicide,7which involved moral turpitude, should result in his disbarment.

The facts leading to respondent's conviction were summarized by Branch 60 of theRegional Trial Court of Baguio City in this wise:

". . . . The accused was driving his brown Toyota Corolla and was on his way home aftergassing up in preparation for his trip to Concepcion, Tarlac with his wife. Along Abanao Street,a taxi driver overtook the car driven by the accused not knowing that the driver of thecar he had overtaken is not just someone, but a lawyer and a prominent member of theBaguio community who was under the influence of liquor. Incensed, the accused tailedthe taxi driver until the latter stopped to make a turn at [the] Chugum and Carino Streets. The

accused also stopped his car, berated the taxi driver and held him by his shirt. To stop theaggression, the taxi driver forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. Thetaxi driver knew that the accused had been drinking because he smelled of liquor. Taking pityon the accused who looked elderly, the taxi driver got out of his car to help him get up. But theaccused, by now enraged, stood up immediately and was about to deal the taxi driver a fistblow when the latter boxed him on the chest instead. The accused fell down a second time,got up again and was about to box the taxi driver but the latter caught his fist and turned hisarm around. The taxi driver held on to the accused until he could be pacified and thenreleased him. The accused went back to his car and got his revolver making sure that thehandle was wrapped in a handkerchief. The taxi driver was on his way back to his vehiclewhen he noticed the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He picked them up intending
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnotes


13/24

to return them to the accused. But as he was handing the same to the accused, he wasmet by the barrel of the gun held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting him onthe neck. He fell on the thigh of the accused so the latter pushed him out and sped off. The incident was witnessed by Antonio Billanes whose testimony corroborated that of the taxidriver, the complainant in this case, Roberto Soriano."8

It was the prosecution witness, Antonio Billanes, who came to the aid of Soriano and broughtthe latter to the hospital. Because the bullet had lacerated the carotid artery on the left side ofhis neck,9complainant would have surely died of hemorrhage if he had not received timely

medical assistance, according to the attending surgeon, Dr. Francisco Hernandez,Jr. Soriano sustained a spinal cord injury, which caused paralysis on the left part of his bodyand disabled him for his job as a taxi driver.

The trial court promulgated its Decision dated November 29, 2001. On January 18, 2002,respondent filed an application for probation, which was granted by the court on severalconditions. These included satisfaction of "the civil liabilities imposed by [the] court in favor ofthe offended party, Roberto Soriano."10

According to the unrefuted statements of complainant, Atty. Dizon, who has yet to comply withthis particular undertaking, even appealed the civil liability to the Court of Appeals. 11

In her Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Herbosa recommended that respondentbe disbarred from the practice of law for having been convicted of a crime involving moralturpitude.

The commissioner found that respondent had not only been convicted of such crime,but that the latter also exhibited an obvious lack of good moral character, based on thefollowing facts:

"1.He was under the influence of liquor while driving his car;

"2.He reacted violently and attempted to assault Complainant only because the latter, driving ataxi, had overtaken him;

"3.Complainant having been able to ward off his attempted assault, Respondent went back tohis car, got a gun, wrapped the same with a handkerchief and shot Complainant[,] who wasunarmed;

"4.When Complainant fell on him, Respondent simply pushed him out and fled;

"5.Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, Respondent denied that he hadshot Complainant;

"6.Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that he was the one mauledby Complainant and two unidentified persons; and,

"7.Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has[,] to date[,] not yet satisfied hiscivil liabilities to Complainant."12

On July 8, 2005, the Supreme Court received for its final action the IBP Resolution adoptingthe Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnotes


14/24

We agree with the findings and recommendations of Commissioner Herbosa, as approvedand adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a crime involvingmoral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyeris deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be nolonger possessed of good moral character.13In the instant case, respondent has beenfound guilty; and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide. Since hisconviction has already been established and is no longer open to question, the only issues

that remain to be determined are as follows: 1) whether his crime of frustrated homicideinvolves moral turpitude, and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment.

Moral turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done contrary to justice,modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private andsocial duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to

justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."

The question of whether the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude has been discussedin International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) v. NLRC,15a labor case concerning anemployee who was dismissed on the basis of his conviction for homicide. Considering the

particular circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, this Court rejected theemployer's contention and held that homicide in that case did not involve moral turpitude. (If itdid, the crime would have been violative of the IRRI's Employment Policy Regulations andindeed a ground for dismissal.) The Court explained that, having disregarded the attendantcircumstances, the employer made a pronouncement that was precipitate. Furthermore, it wasnot for the latter to determine conclusively whether a crime involved moral turpitude. Thatdiscretion belonged to the courts, as explained thus:

". . . . Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known andintentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude

may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances . . . .."16(Emphasis supplied) TcHDIA

In the IRRI case, in which the crime of homicide did not involve moral turpitude, the Courtappreciated the presence of incomplete self-defense and total absence of aggravatingcircumstances. For a better understanding of that Decision, the circumstances of the crime arequoted as follows:

". . . . The facts on record show that Micosa [the IRRI employee] was then urinating and hadhis back turned when the victim drove his fist unto Micosa's face; that the victim then forciblyrubbed Micosa's face into the filthy urinal; that Micosa pleaded to the victim to stop the attack

but was ignored and that it was while Micosa was in that position that he drew a fan knife fromthe left pocket of his shirt and desperately swung it at the victim who released his hold onMicosa only after the latter had stabbed him several times. These facts show that Micosa'sintention was not to slay the victim but only to defend his person. The appreciation in his favorof the mitigating circumstances of self-defense and voluntary surrender, plus the total absenceof any aggravating circumstance demonstrate that Micosa's character and intentions were notinherently vile, immoral or unjust."17

The present case is totally different. As the IBP correctly found, the circumstances clearlyevince the moral turpitude of respondent and his unworthiness to practice law.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnotes


15/24

Atty. Dizon was definitely the aggressor, as he pursued and shot complainant when thelatter least expected it. The act of aggression shown by respondent will not bemitigated by the fact that he was hit once and his arm twisted by complainant. Underthe circumstances, those were reasonable actions clearly intended to fend off thelawyer's assault.

We also consider the trial court's finding of treachery as a further indication of the skewed

morals of respondent. He shot the victim when the latter was not in a position to defendhimself. In fact, under the impression that the assault was already over, the unarmedcomplainant was merely returning the eyeglasses of Atty.Dizon when the latter unexpectedlyshot him. To make matters worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with ahandkerchief so as not to leave fingerprints. In so doing, he betrayed his sly intention toescape punishment for his crime.

The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct,respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, heacted like a god on the road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly,his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a

member of the legal profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness, which wasdefinitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a lawyer. In the tenacity with whichhe pursued complainant, we see not the persistence of a person who has been grievouslywronged, but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to exactrevenge.

It is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm18and hisunjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.19He has thus brazenly violated the law anddisobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. We remind him that, both in his attorney'soath20and in the Code of Professional Responsibility, he bound himself to "obey the laws of

the land."

All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through this incident that he is wanting in even a basic sense ofjustice. He obtained the benevolence of the trial court when it suspended his sentence andgranted him probation. And yet, it has been four years21since he was ordered to settle hiscivil liabilities to complainant. To date, respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill thatobligation. By his extreme impetuosity and intolerance, as shown by his violent reaction to asimple traffic altercation, he has taken away the earning capacity, good health, and youthfulvigor of his victim. Still, Atty. Dizon begrudges complainant the measly amount that couldnever even fully restore what the latter has lost. AICTcE

Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of theprofession of lawyers, but certainly to their good moral character. 22Where their misconductoutside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for their officeand unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, the court maybe justified in suspending or removing them from that office.23

We also adopt the IBP's finding that respondent displayed an utter lack of good moralcharacter, which is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law.Good moral character includes at least common honesty.24
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnotes


16/24

In the case at bar, respondent consistently displayed dishonest and duplicitous behavior. Asfound by the trial court, he had sought, with the aid of Vice-Mayor Daniel Farias, an out-of-court settlement with complainant's family.25But when this effort failed, respondentconcocted a complete lie by making it appear that it was complainant's family that had soughta conference with him to obtain his referral to a neurosurgeon.26

The lies of Atty. Dizon did not end there. He went on to fabricate an entirely implausible storyof having been mauled by complainant and two other persons.27The trial court had this tosay:

"The physical evidence as testified to by no less than three (3) doctors who examined[Atty. Dizon] does not support his allegation that three people including the complainanthelped each other in kicking and boxing him. The injuries he sustained were so minor that it isimprobable[,] if not downright unbelievable[,] that three people who he said were bent onbeating him to death could do so little damage. On the contrary, his injuries sustain thecomplainant's version of the incident particularly when he said that he boxed the accused onthe chest. . . ."28

Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral qualification for bar membership is moreimportant than truthfulness.29The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on

honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior.30Hence, lawyers must not mislead the court orallow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good faith.

The actions of respondent erode rather than enhance public perception of the legalprofession. They constitute moral turpitude for which he should be disbarred. "Law is a nobleprofession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who arecompetent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. Because they arevanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrityin a manner beyond reproach."31

The foregoing abhorrent acts of respondent are not merely dishonorable; they reveal a basicmoral flaw. Considering the depravity of the offense he committed, we find the penaltyrecommended by the IBP proper and commensurate.

The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice byrequiring that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.32Thus, whenever a clearcase of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence, we shall nothesitate to rid our profession of odious members.

We remain aware that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and that

disbarment should never be decreed when any lesser penalty would accomplish the enddesired. In the instant case, however, the Court cannot extend that munificence to respondent.His actions so despicably and wantonly disregarded his duties to society and his profession.We are convinced that meting out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with our loftyaspiration for the legal profession that every lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and

justice.

We stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege demanding a highdegree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, butalso as a continuing requirement for the practice of law. Sadly, herein respondent hasfallen short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/10507?search=%28Soriano+vs+Dizon%29#footnotes


17/24

In sum, when lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending circumstances notthe mere fact of their conviction would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legalprofession. In the present case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonestyof respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT MANUEL DIZON is hereby DISBARRED, and his name isORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys

SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., as represented by REBECCA V.LABRADOR, com plainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS,respondent.

Disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for allegedly representing conflictinginterests and for using the title Judge despite having been found guilty of grave andserious misconduct in Zarate v. Judg e Romani l los.[2]

The facts are as follows:

In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. (SJHAI) beforethe Human Settlements Regulation Commission (HSRC) in a case [3]against Durano andCorp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protection Act(P.D. No. 957). SJHAI alleged that Lot No. 224 was designated as a school site in thesubdivision plan that DCI submitted to the Bureau of Lands in 1961 but was sold by DCIto spouses Ramon and Beatriz Durano without disclosing it as a school site.

While still the counsel for SJHAI, respondent represented Myrna and Antonio Montealegre inrequesting for SJHAIs conformity to construct a school building on Lot No. 224 to bepurchased from Durano.

When the request was denied, respondent applied for clearance before the Housing and Land

Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioners Board of Directorsterminated respondents services as counsel and engaged another lawyer to represent theassociation.

Respondent also acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for DCI in CivilCase No. 18014 entitled San Jose Homeowners, Inc. v. Durano and Corp., Inc. filed beforethe Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134. Thus, SJHAI filed a disbarment caseagainst respondent for representing conflicting interests, docketed as Administrative Case No.4783.

In her Report[4]

dated August 3, 1998, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of theCommission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) made the followingfindings:

Respondent failed to observe candor and fairness in dealing with his clients,knowing fully well that the Montealegre case was adverse to the Complainant whereinhe had previously been not only an active board member but its corporate secretaryhaving access to all its documents confidential or otherwise and its counsel inhandling the implementation of the writ of execution against its developer and owner,Durano and Co. Inc.

Moreso, when Respondent acted as counsel for the substituted defendant Durano and Co.Inc., Lydia Durano-Rodriguez; the conflict of interest between the latter and the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn2


18/24

Complainant became so revealing and yet Respondent proceeded to represent theformer.

For his defense of good faith in doing so; inasmuch as the same wasnt controverted by theComplainant which was his first offense; Respondent must be given the benefit of thedoubt to rectify his error subject to the condition that should he commit the same in thefuture; severe penalty will be imposed upon him.[5]

The Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal of the complaint with the admonitionthat respondent should observe extra care and diligence in the practice of his profession touphold its dignity and integrity beyond reproach.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of theInvestigating Commissioner, which we noted in a resolution dated March 8, 1999.

Notwithstanding the admonition, respondent continued representing Lydia Durano-Rodriguezbefore the Court of Appeals

[6]and this Court

[7]and even moved for the execution of the

decision.

Thus, a second disbarment case was filed against respondent for violation of the March 8,1999 Resolution in A.C. No. 4783 and for his alleged deceitful conduct in using the titleJudge although he was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct.

Respondent used the title Judge in his office letterhead, correspondences andbillboards which was erected in several areas within the San Jose Subdivisionsometime in October 2001.

In his Comment and Explanation,[8]

respondent claimed that he continued to represent LydiaDurano-Rodriguez against petitioner despite the March 8, 1999 Resolution because it was stillpending when the second disbarment case was filed. He maintained that the instant petitionis a rehash of the first disbarment case from which he was exonerated. Concerning the titleJudge, respondent stated that since the filing of the instant petition he had ceased to attachthe title to his name.

On July 7, 2003, the matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report andrecommendation.

[9]

Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. reported that respondent did not violatethe admonition because it referred to future cases only and not to cases subject of A.C.No. 4783. Besides, petitioner never questioned the propriety of respondents continuedrepresentation of Lydia Durano-Rodriguez on appeal until the case was terminated.

The Investigating Commissioner, however, believed that respondent was deceitfulwhen he used the title Judge, thus creating a false impression that he was an

incumbent.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended thus:

In view of the foregoing considerations, this Commissioner respectfully recommends thefollowing penalty range to be deliberated upon by the Board for imposition onRespondent: minimum penalty of reprimand to a maximum penalty of four (4) monthssuspension. It is further recommended that in addition to the penalty to be imposed, a sternwarning be given to Respondent in that should he violate his undertaking/promise notto handle any case in the future where the Complainant would be the adverse partyand/or should he again use the title of Judge which would create an impression that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn5


19/24

he is still connected to the judiciary, a more severe penalty shall be imposed on him bythe Commission.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

The IBP Board of Governors approved with modification the report and recommendation of theInvestigating Commissioner, thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with

modification,the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of theabove-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A, and, finding therecommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,and considering Respondents violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, Atty. Roberto Romanillos is hereby SUSPENDED from thepractice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING that should he violate hisundertaking/promise a more severe penalty shall be imposed against him.

Undoubtedly, respondent represented the inconsistent interests of SJHAI, DCI as substitutedby Lydia Durano-Rodriguez and the Montealegres. Respondent was admonished yet hecontinued to represent Durano-Rodriguez against SJHAI.

It is inconsequential that petitioner never questioned the propriety of respondents continuedrepresentation of Lydia Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of opposition does not mean tacitconsent. As long as the lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two (2) or more opposingclients, he is guilty of violating his oath. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityspecifically mandates that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by writtenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure. Incidentally, it is also misleading forrespondent to insist that he was exonerated in A.C. No. 4783.

We agree with the IBP that respondents continued use of the title Judge violatedRules 1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a lawyerfrom engaging in deceitful conduct and from using any misleading statement or claim

regarding qualifications or legal services. The quasi-judicial notice he posted in thebillboards referring to himself as a judge is deceiving. It was a clear attempt to mislead thepublic into believing that the order was issued in his capacity as a judge when he wasdishonorably stripped of the privilege.

Respondent did not honorably retire from the judiciary. He resigned from being a judge duringthe pendency of Zarate v. Judge Romanillos, where he was eventually found guilty of graveand serious misconduct and would have been dismissed from the service had he notresigned.

In that case, respondent was found guilty of illegal solicitation and receipt of P10,000.00 froma party litigant. We ruled thus:

Considering the foregoing, respondent Judge Roberto B. Romanillos is hereby found guilty ofgrave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and honesty. He deserves the supremepenalty of dismissal. However, respondent, in an obvious attempt to escape punishment forhis misdeeds, tendered his resignation during the pendency of this case. Consequently,we are now precluded from dismissing respondent from the service. Nevertheless, the rulingin People v. Valenzuela (135 SCRA 712 [1985]), wherein the respondent judge likewiseresigned before the case could be resolved, finds application in this case. Therein it was heldthat the rule that the resignation or retirement of a respondent judge in an administrative caserenders the case moot and academic, is not a hard and fast rule.


20/24

ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated finding that respondent Judge Romanillos isguilty of grave and serious misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal fromthe service had he not resigned during the pendency of this case, and it appearing thatrespondent has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges if any; the Court,consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela (supra.), hereby orders theFORFEITURE of all leave and retirement benefits and privileges to which hereinrespondent Judge Romanillos may be entitled WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement

and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, includinggovernment-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.

SO ORDERED.[10]

The penalty imposed upon him in said case included forfeiture of all leave and retirementbenefits andprivileges to which he may be entitled with prejudice to reinstatement and/orreemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned orcontrolled agencies or corporations. Certainly, the use of the title Judge is one ofsuchprivileges.

We have previously declared that the use of titles such as Justice is reservedto incumbentand retiredmembers of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and theSandiganbayan and may not be used by any other official of the Republic, including thosegiven the rank of Justice.

[11]By analogy, the title Judge should be reserved only to judges,

incumbent and retired, and not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service.As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the right to retain and use saidtitle applies only to the aforementioned members of the bench and no other, and certainly notto those who were removed or dismissed from the judiciary, such as respondent.

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.[12]It isbestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess goodmoral character.

[13]Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in

a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the legal profession.[14]

To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, butsuch statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, of all classes andprofessions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that theylive by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conducthave no place in the legal profession.[15]

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. We are mindful that the power todisbar must always be exercised with great caution, for only the most imperativereasons,[16]and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of thelawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.[17]

This is not respondents first infraction as an officer of the court and a member of the legalprofession. He was stripped of his retirement benefits and other privileges in Zarate v. JudgeRomanillos.

[18]In A.C. No. 4783, he got off lightly with just an admonition. Considering his

previous infractions, respondent should have adhered to the tenets of his profession with extrafervor and vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, he manifested undue disrespect to ourmandate and exhibited a propensity to violate the laws. He is thus unfit to discharge theduties of his office and unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed on him as an officer ofthe court. His disbarment is consequently warranted.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_5580.htm#_ftn10


21/24


22/24

A brief factual background of the case follows:

Petitioners and respondents are half-blood siblings. Their mother isDorothela Dayanghirang-Tamayo. Respondents are Dorothelas legitimate childrenwith Dr. Jose Tamayo, Sr. Petitioners, on the other hand, are her illegitimatechildren with Jose Matuco.

Dorothela eventually separated from Jose Matuco. Respondents thereaftertook car

Documents

ETHICS DEC 4.pdf