Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Paras
AC 6792 Jan 25, 2006
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before us is a Complaint-Affidavit[1] for the disbarment of Atty.
Manuel Dizon, filed by Roberto Soriano with the Commission on Bar
Discipine (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). Complainant alleges that the conviction of respondent for a
crime involving moral turpitude, together with the circumstances
surrounding the conviction, violates Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility;[2] and constitutes sufficient
ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court.[3]
Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit his Answer to the
Complaint, the CBD issued a Notice dated May 20, 2004, informing
him that he was in default, and that an ex-parte hearing had been
scheduled for June 11, 2004.[4]
After that hearing, complainant manifested that he was submitting
the case on the basis of the Complaint and its
attachments.[5] Accordingly, the CBDdirected him to file his
Position Paper, which he did on July 27, 2004.[6] Afterwards, the
case was deemed submitted for resolution.
On December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa rendered
her Report and Recommendation, which was later adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI2005-84 dated March 12, 2005.
In his Complaint-Affidavit, Soriano alleged that respondent had
violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and that the conviction of the latter for frustrated
homicide,[7] which involved moral turpitude, should result in his
disbarment.
The facts leading to respondents conviction were summarized by
Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in this wise:
x x x. The accused was driving his brown Toyota Corolla and was on
his way home after gassing 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 the car he had overtaken is not just someone, but a lawyer and a
prominent member of the Baguio community who was under the
influence of liquor. Incensed, the accused tailed the 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 the aggression, the taxi driver
forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. The
taxi driver knew that the accused had been drinking because he
smelled of liquor. Taking pity on the accused who looked elderly,
the taxi driver got out of his car to help him get up. But the accused,
by now enraged, stood up immediately and was about to deal the
taxi driver a fist blow 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
his arm around. The taxi driver held on to the accused until he could
be pacified and then released him. The accused went back to his car
and got his revolver making sure that the handle was wrapped in a
handkerchief. The taxi driver was on his way back to his vehicle
when he noticed the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He
picked them up intending to return them to the accused. But as he
was handing the same to the accused, he was met by the barrel of
the gun held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting him on
the 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 taxi driver, the
complainant in this case, Roberto Soriano.[8]
On July 8, 2005, the Supreme Court received for its final action the
IBP Resolution adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
We agree with the findings and recommendations of Commissioner
Herbosa, as approved and adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a
crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or
suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become
unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer
possessed of good moral character.[13] In the instant case,
respondent has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final
judgment, of frustrated homicide. Since his conviction 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 homicide involves 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 and social duties which a man
owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.[14]
The question of whether the crime of homicide involves moral
turpitude has been discussed in International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) v. NLRC,[15] a labor case concerning an employee who was
dismissed on the basis of his conviction for homicide. Considering
the particular circumstances surrounding the commission of the
crime, this Court rejected the employers contention and held that
homicide in that case did not involve moral turpitude. (If it did, the
crime would have been violative of the IRRIs Employment
Policy Regulations and indeed a ground for dismissal.) The Court
explained that, having disregarded the attendant circumstances, the
employer
made
a
pronouncement
that
was
precipitate. Furthermore, it was not for the latter to determine
In the IRRI case, in which the crime of homicide did not involve
moral turpitude, the Court appreciated the presence of incomplete
self-defense and total absence of aggravating circumstances. For a
better understanding of that Decision, the circumstances of the
crime are quoted as follows:
x x x. The facts on record show that Micosa *the IRRI
employee] was then urinating and had his back turned when the
victim drove his fist unto Micosa's face; that the victim then forcibly
rubbed 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 from the left
pocket of his shirt and desperately swung it at the victim who
released his hold on Micosa only after the latter had stabbed him
several times. These facts show that Micosa's intention was not to
slay the victim but only to defend his person. The appreciation in his
favor of the mitigating circumstances of self-defense and voluntary
surrender, plus the total absence of any aggravating circumstance
demonstrate that Micosa's character and intentions were not
inherently vile, immoral or unjust.[17]
All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through this incident that he is
wanting in even a basic sense of justice. He obtained the
benevolence of the trial court when it suspended his sentence and
granted him probation. And yet, it has been four years[21] since he
was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to complainant. To date,
respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill that obligation. By
his extreme impetuosity and intolerance, as shown by his violent
reaction to a simple traffic altercation, he has taken away the
earning capacity, good health, and youthful vigor of his victim. Still,
Atty. Dizon begrudges complainant the measly amount that could
never even fully restore what the latter has lost.
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to
the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but certainly to their good
moral character.[22] Where their misconduct outside of their
professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for
their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by
their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or
removing them from that office.[23]
We also adopt the IBPs finding that respondent displayed an utter
lack of good moral character, which is an essential qualification for
the privilege to enter into the practice of law. Good moral character
includes at least common honesty.[24]
In the case at bar, respondent consistently displayed dishonest and
duplicitous behavior. As found by the trial court, he had sought,
with the aid of Vice-Mayor Daniel Farias, an out-of-court
settlement with complainants family.[25] But when this effort
failed, respondent concocted a complete lie by making it appear that
it was complainants family that had sought a 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 story of having been mauled by complainant
and two other persons.[27] The trial court had this to say:
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 complainant helped each other in
kicking and boxing him. The injuries he sustained were so minor
that it is improbable[,] if not downright unbelievable[,] that three
people who he said were bent on beating him to death could do so
little damage. On the contrary, his injuries sustain the complainants
version of the incident particularly when he said that he boxed the
accused on the chest. x x x.[28]
2.
3.
xxxx
4.
5.
7.
8.
x x x x
That I am also filing a disbarment
proceedings against his mistress as alleged in the
same affidavit, Atty. Romana P. Valencia
considering that out of their immoral acts I
suffered not only mental anguish but also
besmirch reputation, wounded feelings and
sleepless nights; x x x
[3]
SO ORDERED.
1.
6.
xxxx
General Considerations
[23]
Thereupon, the petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 153, Pasig, Metro Manila and docketed as Civil Case No.
55118. Respondent demanded from the complainant one thousand
pesos (P l,000.00) as attorney's fee which the latter paid that same
afternoon.
However, when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the
presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case
on the ground of their friendship.
PER CURIAM
Public interest requires that an attorney exert his
best efforts and ability in the prosecution or
defense of his client's cause. A lawyer who
performs that duty with diligence and candor
not only protects the interests of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. This is so
because the entrusted privilege to practice law
carries with it the correlative duties not only to
the client but also to the court, to the bar or to
the public. That circumstance explains the public
concern for the maintenance of an untarnished
standard of conduct by every attorney towards
1
his client.
Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto V. Potenciano,
a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll
No. 21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation,
and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming
of an officer of the court.
The essential facts are as follows:
Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of Civil Cases Nos.
55118 and 55210 was done in good faith and that the allegations of
complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all
lies, product of one's imagination and only intended to harrass
6
him.
This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and
55210 appear to be poorly prepared and written. having
represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels for the
apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have
carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of
his representation. The little time involved is no excuse.
Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty was to file the
best pleading within his capability. Apparently respondent was more
interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a
hopeless situation. He bragged about his closeness to the judge
concerned in one case and talked about the need to "buy" the
restraining order in the other. Worse still he got P 10,000.00 as
alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he
pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is
obvious.
When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he
will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The
failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's
cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had
reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
7
elementary principles of professional ethics .
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil
Case No. 55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of
their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no
steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this
fact.
Even assuming that respondent had no previous knowledge that he
would be asked to withdraw, the record is quite clear that four (4)
days prior to the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case
No. 55118 respondent already filed a motion therein withdrawing as
complainant's counsel interposing as reason therefor his frequent
attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids. Despite this void, respondent
failed to find a replacement. He did not even ask complainant to hire
8
another lawyer in his stead.
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with
utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust
9
and confidence which he owes his client. More so in this case,
where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby
suffered by losing all her cases.
Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T.
SIMBILLO,respondent.
[G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003]
The filing of Civil Case No. 55210 on October 26, 1987, the same day
that he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for
complainant in Civil Case No. 55118, reveals his lack of good faith as
an advocate. He also failed to appear for the complainant in said
case. It was all a show to get more money from her. This adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law. When confronted with this
evident irregularity, he lamely stated that while he did not physically
appear for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted the
pleadings.
His services were engaged by complainant hoping that the property
subject of the ejectment proceeding would be returned to her. In
fact, it was respondent who persuaded complainant that the filing of
these two cases simultaneously were the means by which this
objective can be achieved. His duty was not only to prepare the
pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the
cases. This he failed to do.
His representation that there was an immediate need to file Civil
Case No. 55210 when he already knew that he could no longer
10
physically handle the same is an act of deception of his client. It
shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office as a member of the
Philippine bar.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement
that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine
Daily Inquirer, which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist
[1]
532-4333/521-2667.
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public
Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published
telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. She
spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino
Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can
guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the
case will not involve separation of property or custody of
children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case
and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and
the Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements
were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of theManila
[2]
Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.
2.
3.
4.
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement
of the lawyers name and the names of his professional associates;
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar
associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies
and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists;
the names and addresses of references; and, with their written
consent, the names of clients regularly represented.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that
purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper,
magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive
or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the
profession.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted.
The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the
law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number
and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple
announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may
likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under
a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and italics
supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T.
SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE
(1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as
attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.