CANON 1

RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO

(A.M. No. P-06-2177, June 26, 2006)

FACTS:
Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of
gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody.
She was fined P10k. Since his malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful conduct), the SC
ordered ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an
officer of the court. Atty. Kho explained that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash
deposited with him was inexcusable; he maintained his contention that he kept the money in the
courts safety vault and never once used it for his own benefit.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

HELD:
YES. Even though he was in good faith, his action was a breach of his oath to obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities and of his duties under Canon
1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal
processes while Rule 1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be
at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make
themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon
1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to
law is unlawful. The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to
bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from
engaging in unlawful conduct. Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from exemplary, it was
unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to account. Atty. Kho is ordered to pay FINE.
 CANON 1

SORIANO v. ATTY. DIZON

(A.C 6792, January 25, 2006)

FACTS:
Atty. Dizon was driving his car on his way home. Soriano, taxi driver overtook his car
driven by Dizon who was under the influence of liquor. Dizon tailed Soriano until the latter
stopped. Dizon stopped his car held Soriano by his shirt. To stop the aggression, the Soriano
forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. Soriano got out of his car to help
him get up. But Dizon, by now enraged, attempted twice to deal Soriano with a fist blow twice.
Dizon went back to his car and got his revolver and shot Soriano. Soriano survived but sustained
a spinal cord injury which disabled him for his job as a taxi driver. Dizon filed an application for
probation which was granted on the condition that he satisfy the civil liabilities imposed by the
court in favor of Soriano. Dizon failed to comply with this undertaking and even appealed the
civil liability. IBP recommended that Dizon be disbarred from the practice of law for having been
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Atty. Dizon violated Canon 1 of the CPR.
2. Whether Atty. Dizon should be disbarred from the practice of law.

HELD:
1. YES. It is glaringly clear that respondent violated Canon 1 of the CPR through his illegal
possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He
has thus violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. Dizon has shown
through this incident that he is wanting in even a basic sense of justice. He obtained the
benevolence of the court when it suspended his sentence and granted him probation. And yet,
it has been four years since he was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to complainant. To
date, respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill that obligation,

2. 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. 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." 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, he acted 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. When lawyers are
convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending circumstances not the mere fact of their
conviction would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession. In the present
case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly
show his unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar. Atty. Dizon is DISBARRED.