Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DIGESTS:
and his violations of the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and
inability to discharge his duties as a member of the bar. His actions erode rather
than enhance the public perception of the legal profession. Therefore, in view of the
totality of his violations, as well as the damage and prejudice caused to his client,
respondent deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment .
It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not
meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse
the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the
public and the courts. It is not an investigation into the acts of respondent as a
husband but on his conduct as an officer of the Court and his fitness to continue as
a member of the Bar.15 Hence, the Affidavit dated March 15, 1995, which is akin to
an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings.
3. MELVYN
G.
GARCIA, Complainant, vs.
ATTY.
SESBRENO, Respondent
A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 3, 2015
RAUL
H.
Facts:
Respondents services was availed of by the complainants children in an action for
support. Complainant claims that respondent cannot practice law because he was
convicted of the crime of homicide. A crime complainant claims to be one involving
moral turpitude.
Respondent on the other hand claims that his sentence was commuted and the
phrase "with the inherent accessory penalties provided by law" was deleted. He
argued that even if the accessory penalty was not deleted, the disqualification
applies only during the term of the sentence. He further alleged that homicide does
not involve moral turpitude.
Issue:
Whether or not homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude
Held:
In this case yes. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that
disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. This is not to say that all convictions of the crime
of homicide do not involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral
turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. The IBP-CBD correctly stated that
the victims in the homicide involving respondent were just at the wrong place and
time. They did not do anything that justified the indiscriminate firing done by
respondent that eventually led to their death.
We cannot accept respondents argument that the executive clemency restored his
full civil and political rights. The Order of Commutation did not state that the pardon
was absolute and unconditional. The accessory penalties were not mentioned when
the original sentence was recited in the Order of Commutation and they were also
not mentioned in stating the commuted sentence.
DANTE
O.
TINGA
Facts:
The respondent is charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.
The complainant filed a sales application covering a parcel of land. The Committee
on Awards was headed by the Director of Lands and the respondent was one of the
Committee members, in his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and
Pateros (from 1987 to 1998); the respondents district includes the areas covered by
the proclamations.
The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02
The complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure and influence
over the complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest the
complainants sales application and claim the subject land for himself. The
complainant further claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of rights of
the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the
nephew of the respondents deceased wife.
In any event, even granting that respondents act fell within the definition of
practice of law, the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to show that the
legal representation was made before the Committee on Awards, or that the
Assurance was intended to be presented before it. These are matters for the
complainant to prove and we cannot consider any uncertainty in this regard against
the respondents favor.