Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
disbarred
PER CURIAM:
This administrative complaint for disbarment charges
respondent, a former Assistant City Fiscal of manila, with
malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an attorney.
I
On March 30, 1971, at around 9:00 A.M. complainant reported
to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been
the victim of extortion by respondent, an Assistant City Fiscal
of Manila, who was investigating a complaint for estafa filed by
complainant's business rival. According to complainant, he
had given respondent P500.00 on March 1, 1971 and a total of
P500.00 on three other occasions. He said that another
"payoff" was scheduled at 11:00 A.M. that day in respondent's
office at the City Hall.
An entrapment was set up by the NBI.
Legal Ethics
Legal Ethics
of
the
charges
filed
by
Legal Ethics
was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court hence
he was reinstated to the profession.
ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.
HELD: Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As a lawyer, he should not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an
officer of the courts; he is like the court itself, an instrument or
agency to advance the ends of justice. Considering that this is
his second offense, an incorrigible practitioner of dirty tricks,
like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of an
instrument to advance the ends of justice. By descending to
the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned
and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his
moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable
fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the
Legal Ethics
Legal Ethics
Legal Ethics
Legal Ethics
SO ORDERED.
IN RE; BASA
FACTS:
Legal Ethics
HELD: No.
RATIO DECIDENDI: There is no doubt in our minds that a
very special relationship existed between the respondent and
the complainant's wife as evidenced by cards or notes (love
letters). It is clear that their affair began before Sol and Dr.
Alfonso were married on 10 December 1988 and might have
blossomed from the attorney-client relationship between
respondent and Sol. However, the evidence presented was
insufficient to prove that he and Sol continued their
extramarital affair after Judge Juanson was appointed to the
judiciary. Sol's admission to her husband that she had carnal
knowledge with the judge made no reference to specific dates
and the side of Dr. Alfonso exerted no further effort to obtain
clarifications as to the dates. It cannot be safely presumed that
Juanson committed any sexual indiscretion after he became a
judge. He is not charged for immorality committed before his
appointment. Accordingly, proof of prior immoral conduct
cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline in this case.
Judge Juanson may have undergone moral reformation after
his appointment, or his appointment could have completely
transformed him upon the solemn realization that a public
9
Legal Ethics
Legal Ethics
Oblena
was
disbarred.
RATIO:
The continued possession of a fair private and professional
character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for
the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has
been admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment
even though the statutes do not specify that as ground for
disbarment.
Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no
way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless
rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.
Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shock
common sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action
by the Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession
of
the
law.
As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for
license to practice law is required to show good moral
character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good
reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him,
Aspiras vs Mortel
100 Phil 586 Legal Ethics Lawyer may be disbarred even if
transgression is not one enumerated by law
In 1952, Atty. Anacleto Aspiras introduced himself as a single
man to Mortel. The latter believed it and he let Anacleto court
her. Anacleto, with flowery words, promised to marry Mortel.
With this promise, Mortel agreed to have carnal knowledge
with him. Later, Anacleto persuaded Mortel to go to Manila so
that they could marry there. Mortel complied. However,
Anacleto did not secure the marriage license with Mortel,
instead he let Cesar Aspiras, whom he introduced to Mortel as
his nephew, secure it with Mortel. Further, in the marriage
ceremony, Anacleto made Mortel believe that Cesar will be his
proxy in the wedding. So it happened that Mortel married
Cesar who turned out to be Anacletos son, worse, Cesar
was a minor. Worst still, after Cesars and Mortels marriage,
Anacleto continued to cohabit and have carnal knowledge with
11
Legal Ethics
Mortel until the latter got pregnant, and until the latter found
out that Anacleto is married and he has a son, Cesar.
FACTS:
Complainant, Victoria Barrientos, is single, a college student,
and was about 20 years and 7 months old during the time
(July-October 1975) of her relationship with respondent, while
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol is married, General
Legal Ethics
Dipolog City, and at about 10:00 o'clock that evening, they left
the place but before going home, they went to the airport at
Sicayab, Dipolog City and parked the jeep at the beach, where
there were no houses around; that after the usual
preliminaries, they consummated the sexual act and at about
midnight they went home; that after the first sexual act,
respondent used to have joy ride with complainant which
usually ended at the airport where they used to make love
twice or three times a week; that as a result of her intimate
relations, complainant became pregnant.
HELD:
That after a conference among respondent, complainant and
complainant's parents, it was agreed that complainant would
deliver her child in Manila, where she went with her mother on
October 22, 1973 by boat, arriving in Manila on the 25th and,
stayed with her brother-in-law Ernesto Serrano in Singalong,
Manila; that respondent visited her there on the 26th, 27th and
28th of October 1973, and again in February and March 1974;
that later on complainant decided to deliver the child in Cebu
City in order to be nearer to Dipolog City, and she went there
in April 1974 and her sister took her to the Good Shepherd
Convent at Banawa Hill, Cebu City; that on June 14, 1974, she
delivered a baby girl at the Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu
City and, named her "Dureza Barrientos"; that about the last
week of June 1974 she went home to Dipolog City; that during
her stay here in Manila and later in Cebu City, the respondent
defrayed some of her expenses; that she filed an
administrative case against respondent with the National
Electrification Administration; which complaint, however, was
dismissed; and then she instituted the present disbarment
proceedings against respondent.
13