Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
August 1, 2007
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be
disbarred after conviction by final judgment of
the crime of falsification.
HELD
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended
on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4)
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of
the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly
or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a
case without authority so to do.
FACTS:
This is in relation to the administrative
case filed by Atty. Collantes, counsel for V& G
Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against
Atty. Renomeron, for the latters irregular
actuations with regard to the application of V&G
for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of
Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of
GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.
Although V&G complied with the desired
requirements, Renomeron suspended the
registration of the documents with certain
special conditions between them, which was
that V&G should provide him with weekly round
trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus
P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu
thereof, the sale of respondents Quezon City
house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives.
Eventually, Renomeron formally denied
the registration of the documents. He himself
elevated the question on the registrability of the
said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of
the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator
then resolved in favor of the registrability of the
documents.
Despite the resolution of the Administrator,
Renomeron still refused the registration thereof
but demanded from the parties interested the
submission of additional requirements not
adverted in his previous denial.
ISSUES:
Whether or notAtty. Renomeron, as a
lawyer, may also be disciplined by the
Court for his malfeasance as a public
official.
Whether or not the Code of Professional
Responsibility applies to government
service in the discharge of official tasks.
HELD:
A lawyers misconduct as a public official
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The lawyers oath imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or
malice. The lawyers oath is a source of
obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary
action.
The Code of Professional Responsibility
applies to government service in the discharge
of their official tasks (Canon 6). The Code
forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule
1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or
delay any mans cause for any corrupt motive
or interest (Rule 1.03).
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron is
disbarred from the practice of law in the
Philippines, and his name is stricken off the Roll
of Attorneys
G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975
VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS
HENSON, petitioners,
vs.
PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and
THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Facts:
The parties in this case, except Lourdes Yu Ago,
have
been
commuting
to
this
Court
for more than a decade.
In 1955 the petitioners Venancio Castaeda and
Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against
Pastor Ago in the Court of First Instance of
Manila to recover certain machineries. In 1957
judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs,
ordering Ago to return the machineries or pay
definite sums of money. Ago appealed, and the
Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. After
remand, the trial court issued on August 25,
1961 a writ of execution for the sum of
P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of execution
but his motion was denied, and levy was made
on Ago's house and lots located in Quezon City.
The sheriff then advertised them for auction sale
on October 25, 1961. Ago moved to stop the
auction sale, failing in which he filed a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The
appellate court dismissed the petition and Ago
appealed.
On January 31,1966 this Court, in Ago vs. Court
of Appeals, et al., L-19718, affirmed the
dismissal. Ago thrice attempted to obtain a writ
of preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff