Bribery; moral turpitude; lawyer disbarred Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element.

Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element. The fact that the offender agrees to
accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an
official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to
renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and society in general. Also, fee fact that the
RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED
offender takes advantage of his office and position is a betrayal of the trust reposed on him by
“PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO C. BARROZO”, FORMER ASSISTANT
the public. It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty
PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, RESPONDENT.  EN BANC, A.C. No. 10207, July 21,
and good morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. 4 
2015.
(Emphases and italics in the original)
  
“x x x.
Clearly, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude which, as mentioned, is a ground for the
suspension or disbarment of a lawyer from his office as an attorney.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, one of the grounds for the suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer is his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. And with the finality
The Court is mindful that a lawyer’s conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude does not
of respondent’s conviction for direct bribery, the next question that needs to be answered is
automatically call for the imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment since it may, in its
whether direct bribery is a crime that involves moral turpitude.
discretion, choose to impose the less severe penalty of suspension. As held, “the determination of
whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of
To consider a crime as one involving moral turpitude, the act constituting the same must have been
sound judicial discretion.”5  Here, however, the circumstances surrounding the case constrain the
“done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.  [It must involve] an act of baseness,
Court to impose the penalty of disbarment as recommended by the OBC.
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman,
It must be recalled that at the time of the commission of the crime, respondent was an Assistant
or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”1 
Public Prosecutor of the City of Dagupan. His act therefore of extorting money from a party to a
case handled by him does not only violate the requirement that cases must be decided based on the
In Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa,2  the Court already had the occasion to answer the same question posed
merits of the parties’ respective evidence but also lessens the people’s confidence in the rule of law. 
in this case, viz:
Indeed respondent’s conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character required
Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only
which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,
to refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
modesty, or good morals. Section 27, Rule 138 provides:
government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is
‘Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A
burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice.6 
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
Hence, for committing a crime which does not only show his disregard of his oath as a government
immoral conduct, or  by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
official but is likewise of such a nature as to negatively affect his qualification as a lawyer,
turpitude,  or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
respondent must be disbarred from his office as an attorney.
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority [to do so]. The practice
As a final note, it is well to state that:
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.’
The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring
that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable – lawyers in
xxxx
whom courts and [the public at large] may repose confidence. Thus, whenever a clear case of
degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence, [the Court] shall not hesitate
to rid [the] profession of odious members.7 
[T]he crime of direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. In Magno v. COMELEC,3 we
ruled:
X x x.” 
‘By applying for probation, petitioner in effect admitted all the elements of the crime of direct
bribery:

1.      the offender is a public officer;

2.    the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another;
3.    such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to
committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to Ramon C. Gonzalez vs. Atty. Arnel C. Alcaraz
do; and
4.    the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the Republic of the Philippines
performance of his official duties. SUPREME COURT
Manila
 FIRST DIVISION "Complainant alleges that the Nissan Infiniti used by respondent is allegedly a luxury
vehicle which was not covered by any document whatsoever and 'it was not verified
whether stolen or smuggled.'
A.C. No. 5321             September 27, 2006

"Complainant finally alleges that the PNP Crime Laboratory examined his car and 'they
RAMON C. GONZALEZ, complainant,
recovered one slug in between the wall of the left rear door while the other bullet went
vs.
through the right front seat and exited at the left rear door of complainant's car and
ATTY. ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, respondent.
that cases of Frustrated Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms were already filed
at the Parañaque City Prosecutor's Office.
PANGANIBAN, C.J.:
xxx   xxx   xxx
Disbarment cases are sui generis. Being neither criminal nor civil in nature, these are not intended
to inflict penal or civil sanctions. The main question to be determined is whether respondent is still
"In his Comment dated 04 January 2001, respondent claims that the present
fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
administrative case is unfounded and unwarranted and was allegedly filed in bad faith,
with malice and ill motive and allegedly has no other purpose but to harass, vex,
The Case and the Facts humiliate and dishonor him. In support thereof, respondent points to the fact that
complainant filed 'substantially identical complaint affidavits with the same identical
alleged cause of action as that of the present administrative case at [various] judicial,
This case arose from a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by Ramon C. Gonzalez with the Office of the Bar
quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals and accused him of forum-shopping.
Confidant of the Supreme Court. The Complaint was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 2 Complainant charged Atty.
Arnel C. Alcaraz with grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and acts unbecoming a lawyer. The "Respondent denied the narration of facts stated in complainant's Complaint-Affidavit
antecedents were summarized by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) as follows: as 'self-serving, a misrepresentation of facts and obviously tainted.' Respondent claims
that he was not the aggressor during the incident and that he did not provoke
complainant. Respondent claims that he 'justly acted in self-defense and defense of a
"x x x [C]omplainant alleges that on 11 August 2000, while he was driving along the
stranger under the true actuality of facts and circumstances the[n] prevailing.'
South Superhighway upon entering the Sucat Toll Gate heading towards Makati,
respondent, who was driving a Nissan Infiniti suddenly cut across his path while
overtaking him and almost hit his car had he not been able to evade it. According to "Respondent also claims that the acts complained of in the present case were not
complainant, he chased respondent's car and when he was side by side with connected with the practice of the legal profession and the fact that he was a lawyer is
respondent's car, he angrily confronted respondent and then drove on. Complainant merely coincidental, immaterial and irrelevant.
claims that respondent then chased him and shot him twice but fortunately missed him
by a few inches[,] but broken glass coming from the shattered window allegedly hit him
xxx   xxx   xxx
and slightly wounded his right arm and stomach. Complainant adds that respondent
allegedly tried to escape but he was able to chase him and block his way at the Nichols
Toll Gate where the PNCC guards responded to his call for assistance. According to "In connection with the cases filed by the parties against each other, respondent
complainant, respondent attempted to escape and avoid the PNCC guards by submitted the xxx Resolutions/Decisions issued in said cases to show that the charges
'proclaiming boisterously that he is a lawyer and a customs official' but complainant filed against him by the complainant were dismissed while the criminal cases he filed
was able to block his way again and their vehicles collided in the process. Complainant against the latter [were] filed in court.
claims that he requested the PNCC guards to confiscate respondent's firearm and
accompany them to the nearest police station. At the time of the 'arrest,' respondent
xxx   xxx   xxx
allegedly opened the back door of his car and pretended to have accidentally dropped
so much money which distracted the policemen from further searching the car.
"Finally, it is the submission of the respondent that since the alleged acts complained of
are not within the sphere of his professional duties as a lawyer, but rather are acts done
"At the police station, respondent allegedly identified himself and his lady companion,
in his non-professional or private capacity, the same, cannot allegedly be the subject of
a certain Ferlita Semeniano, and [said] that he was the Deputy Customs Collector
an administrative complaint for disbarment."3
assigned at Batangas City. Complainant claims that respondent yielded 'one (1) Super .
38 cal. Springfield Automatic Pistol, SN NMII 3138, one (1) magazine with seven (7)
live ammos and three (3) spent (empty) shells.' Complainant adds that respondent Report and Recommendation
presented only an unsigned Memorandum Receipt (MR) of the firearm without any of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Mission Order or Permit to Carry. Complainant claims that respondent allegedly kept
calling persons to help him and a 'fabricated Mission Order was brought and presented
In his Report,4 IBP Investigating Commissioner Rafael Antonio M. Santos said that the dismissal of
by another person more than eight hours after the shooting incident and
the criminal and other administrative charges filed by complainant indicated that respondent's
apprehension.'
version of the incident was given credence by the investigating officials and agencies of the various
other tribunals in which these charges were filed. Consequently, since no sufficient evidence
warranted the imposition of further disciplinary sanctions on respondent, the investigating
commissioner recommended the dismissal of the administrative case.
In Resolution No. XVI-2005-29 dated March 12, 2005, the board of governors of the IBP adopted As a lawyer, respondent should know that the following three requisites must concur to justify self-
the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Santos. defense: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. 13 On
the other hand, in defense of a stranger, the first two requisites must also be present together with
On July 8, 2005, the Resolution, together with the records of the case, was transmitted to this
the element that the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
Court for final action, pursuant to Section 12(b) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. On August 4,
motive.14
2005, complainant asked this Court to set aside Resolution No. XVI-2005-29 of the IBP board of
governors. Upon orders of this Court,5 respondent filed on August 22, 2005, his Comment on
complainant's plea. Of these requisites, unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding both self-defense
and defense of a stranger; the fundamental raison d'etre of these defenses is the necessity to
prevent or repel an aggression.15 The alleged throwing of coins by complainant cannot be
The Court's Ruling
considered a sufficient unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent threat to life and limb. 16 There was no aggression to prevent or repel.
The Court disagrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Absent this imminent threat, respondent had no legal reason to shoot "in the direction of
complainant."
Administrative Liability of Respondent
Third, for lack of supporting evidence, neither can merit be accorded to respondent's claim of
imminent threat after allegedly seeing complainant draw a pistol. The Joint Affidavit 17 of PNCC
At the outset, we stress that the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent did not erase
Officers Florencio Celada y Seso, Jr. and Mario Puso y Visaya mentioned no firearm found in the
the occurrence of the shooting incident, which he himself does not deny. Moreover, this incident
possession of complainant. Except for the bare and belated allegations of respondent, there was no
has been established by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, he must face the consequences of his
showing that complainant's alleged possession of the pistol had been reported to the PNCC officers
actions.
or later to the police headquarters. Thus, without proof of the existence of the firearm, respondent
has not convincingly shown any legal justification for his act of firing at complainant.18
The first Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides as follows:
Fourth, right after the shooting incident, respondent fled the scene. He stopped only when PNCC
"CANON 1. - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and officers blocked his vehicle in response to complainant's call for assistance. If respondent was only
promote respect for law and legal processes."6 protecting himself and his companion, then his righteous indignation should have propelled him to
report immediately his version of the incident to the PNCC officers.
Furthermore, respondent bound himself to "obey the laws" in his attorney's oath,7 which
underscores the role of lawyers as officers of our legal system. A lawyer's brash transgression of Disbarment Proceedings
any, especially a penal, law is repulsive and reprehensible and cannot be countenanced by this Sui Generis
Court.8
Respondent maintains that the dismissal of the cases filed by complainant against him in the
Admitting that he fired shots in the direction of complainant while they were speeding along South various tribunals and agencies proves that the present case for disbarment is unfounded.
Luzon Expressway,9 respondent justifies his actions by claiming self-defense and defense of a
stranger. During the traffic altercation, complainant allegedly exchanged angry words with
We do not agree.
respondent and, from an open car window, even threw a handful of coins at the
latter.10 Respondent further avers that, from his higher vantage point, he saw complainant draw a
pistol.11 The former contends that when he fired the shots, he had no intention of hitting Well-established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.
complainant but merely wanted to scare him away. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. 19In Re
Almacen,20 the Court discoursed on this point thus:
Reviewing the factual circumstances, we are convinced that the defenses proffered are mere
afterthoughts. Based on the physical and documentary evidence, complainant's version of the "x x x [D]isciplinary proceedings [against lawyers] are sui generis. Neither purely civil
incident is more credible. nor purely criminal, x x x [they do] not involve x x x a trial of an action or a suit, but
[are] rather investigation[s] by the Court into the conduct of its officers. Not being
intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution.
First, the allegation of respondent that complainant hit him with coins is highly improbable. At
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be
that time, both vehicles were speeding along the highway. Since the PNP Crime Laboratory
initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the
Report12 showed that the bullets fired by respondent had come from the right side, his vehicle must
real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be
have been to the right of complainant's. If we were to accept this version, the coins hurled by
allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
complainant had to pass through his car's right window and then through the left window of
Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer
respondent's admittedly taller sports utility vehicle (SUV). Given their relative positions, it is
of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
highly incredible that the coins could have hit respondent and his companion.
proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who
by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with
Second, assuming that respondent and his companion were indeed hit by coins, this alleged fact the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. x x x."21
was not a sufficient unlawful aggression that would justify shooting at complainant.
Respondent's administrative liability stands on grounds different from those in the other cases The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred abogado Jose Quesada Jr. for repeatedly ignoring its orders to refute
previously filed against him; thus, the dismissal of these latter cases does not necessarily result in allegations that he notarized a spurious deed of sale involving dead sellers.
administrative exculpation. Settled is the rule that, being based on a different quantum of proof,
the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not necessarily In a recent 12-page en banc decision, the SC said Quesada’s disregard for its orders prolonged the case by
foreclose the finding of guilt in an administrative proceeding.22 five years.
The SC originally required Quesada to file a comment on the complaint of Romeo Zarcilla and Marita
Misconduct Committed Bumanglag on June 26, 2006. It even granted Quesada’s request for extension of time on November 20,
in a Private Capacity 2006.
But, Quesada still failed to submit his comment, prompting the SC to issue a show cause order on
Untenable is respondent's argument that the acts complained of cannot be the subject of a September 26, 2007. On June 16, 2008, it first imposed a P1,000 fine; two more orders were issued on
complaint for disbarment, because they were done in his private capacity. February 16, 2009 and March 9, 2011 that escalated the fine to P3,000 to no avail.
Only after the SC issued a warrant of arrest on August 24, 2011 did Quesada surrender to the National
Whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may be disbarred or suspended Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on October 11, 2011 and finally submit his comment and paid the fines
for misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of acts showing their unworthiness as officers of the
courts; as well as their lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor.23 When the The SC said Quesada was guilty of willful disobedience of its lawful orders and his actions showed “utter
misconduct committed outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them to be disrepect” and a “high degree of irresponsibility.”
morally unfit for the office and the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, Quesada did not even offer any apology or justification for his long delay in complying with the SC’s
they may be suspended or disbarred.24
directives.
“While the Court has been tolerant of his obstinate refusal to comply with its directives, he shamelessly
In Cordon v. Balicanta,25 this Court explained the rationale for this holding as follows:
ignored the same and wasted the Court’s time and resources,” read the decision.

"x x x. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic “His compliance was neither prompted by good faith or willingness to obey the Court nor was he
ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but remorseful of his infractions but was actually only forced to do so considering his impending arrest,” it
should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of added.
good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is As for the issue of the spurious deed of sale, the SC found Quesada guilty of gross misconduct.
concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the
tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal He was found to have notarized the April 12, 2002 document purportedly executed by Zarcilla’s parents
career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored Tarcela and Perfecto, despite them having died on January 9, 1988 and March 4, 2001.
fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such
Quesada even certified that he knew the sellers of the land and that they executed the document even as
character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the
resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because 'vast they turned out to have been dead already.
interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and “Atty. Quesada’s act of notarizing the deed of sale appeared to have been done to perpetuate a fraud,” the
confidence; he deals with his client's property, reputation, his life, his all.'"26 decision read. “Atty. Quesada deliberately made false representations, and was not merely negligent.”

The vengeful and violent behavior exhibited by respondent in what should have been a simple
traffic altercation reveals his conceit and delusions of self-importance. By firing his gun openly in a
congested highway and exposing complainant and the general public to danger, he showed his
utter lack of a sense of responsibility, as well as of respect for law and order.

Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by respondent's gross misconduct. In line

with Lao v. Medel,27Co v. Bernardino,28 and Saburnido v. Madroño,29 suspension from the
practice of law for one year is appropriate in this case.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Arnel C. Alcaraz is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is

hereby SUSPENDED for one year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more
severely. PER CURIAM:

Before us is a Petition for Disbarment[1] dated February 9, 2006 filed by complainants Romeo A.

SO ORDERED.
Zarcilla (Zarcilla) and Marita Bumanglag (Bumanglag) against respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada,
Jr. (Atty. Quesada) for gross misconduct.
The facts are as follows:
On August 5, 2002, complainant Zarcilla executed an Affidavit-Complaint[2] against respondent However, Zarcilla later on withdrew said cases when he learned that Bumanglag was not aware of
Atty. Quesada and complainant Marita Bumanglag, among others, for falsification of public the contents of her counter-affidavit when she signed the same. He also found out that Bumanglag
documents docketed as I.S. No. 02-128-SF. Zarcilla alleged that Bumanglag conspired with certain was deceived by her co accused, including Atty. Quesada. Thus, upon the motion of Zarcilla, in an
spouses Maximo Quezada and Gloria Quezada (Spouses Quezada) and Atty. Quesada to falsify a Order[10] dated July 27, 2005, the court dismissed all falsification cases against Bumanglag.
Deed of Sale[3] dated April 12, 2002 by making it appear that his parents, Perfecto G. Zarcilla and
Tarcela A. Zarcilla, sold a parcel of land under TCT No. T-18490 in favor of the Spouses Quezada In a Resolution[11] dated June 26, 2006, the Court resolved to require Atty. Quesada to file a
despite knowledge that his parents were already deceased since March 4, 2001 and January 9, comment on the complaint against him.
1988, respectively, as per Death Certificates[4] issued by the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar
of Santo Tomas, La Union. Said signing of deed of sale was allegedly witnessed by a certain Norma On August 28, 2006, Atty. Quesada file a Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment[12] due to
Zafe and Bumanglag, and notarized by Atty. Quesada. voluminous workload. On September 18, 2006, Atty. Quesada filed a second motion for extension
to file comment. In a Resolution[13] dated November 20, 2006, the Court granted Atty. Quesada's
Other than the alleged falsified deed of sale, Zarcilla also claimed that on March 20, 2002, the motions for extension with a warning that the second motion for extension shall be the last and
Spouses Quezada filed a petition for the administrative reconstitution of the original copy of TCT that no further extension will be given.
No. 18490 where they presented the Joint Affidavit of his then already deceased parents, the
spouses Perfecto Zarcilla and Tarcela A. Zarcilla as the petitioners.[5] Said Joint-Affidavit of the On September 26, 2007, due to Atty. Quesada's failure to file a comment on the complaint against
Spouses Quezada was again notarized by Atty. Quesada. him within the extended period which expired on October 17, 2006, the Court resolved to require
Atty. Quesada to (a) show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt
However, on October 9, 2002, Bumanglag executed a Counter-affidavit[6] in the same case where from such failure, and (b) comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by submitting the
she claimed to be the real owner of the property after Perfecto Zarcilla sold the same to her mother. required comment.[14]
Bumanglag also stated therein that she facilitated the sale transaction to the Spouses Quezada
which, in effect, exonerated her co-respondents, including Atty. Quesada, the pertinent portion of Due to Atty. Quesada's failure to comply with the Show Cause Resolution dated September 26,
which reads: 2007, the Court resolved to (a) impose upon Atty. Quesada, a fine of P1,000.00, and (b) require
Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 by filing the comment required
xxxx therein.[15]

6. That after the death of my mother I needed money to pay for the expenses she incurred when No payment of fine was made as of January 13, 2009 as evidenced by a Certification[16] which was
she was sick and need medication and all the (sic) to pay for the expenses of her burial. I offered to issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer.
sell the property to Spouses MAX QUEZADA and GLORIA QUEZADA. I showed them the Deed of
Sale between PERFECTO ZARCILLA and my mother. I also showed them the paper that my Again, failing to comply with the directives of the Court to pay the fine imposed against him and to
mother signed giving me the land; submit his comment, the Court, in a Resolution[17] dated February 16, 2009, resolved to (a) impose
upon Atty. Quesada an additional fine of P1,000.00, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if
7. That the Spouses Quezada told me that they will buy the land provided I will be the one to said fines are not paid within 10 days from notice, and (b) order Atty. Quesada to comply with the
transfer the said land to their name. They gave me an advance payment so that I could transfer the Resolution dated June 26, 2006 to submit his comment on the complaint against him. Atty.
land to them. I made it appear that PERFECTO ZARCILLA sold the property to the said Quesada was also warned that should he fail to comply, he shall be ordered arrested and detained
spouses because the title of the land was still in the name of Perfecto Zarcilla. I did by the National Bureau of Investigation until he shall have made the compliance or until such time
not have [any] criminal intent when I did it because the land no longer belong to as the Court may order.
Perfecto Zarcilla. I did all the subsequent acts like Petition for Reconstitution in the name of
Perfecto Zarcilla because then, the title was still in his name. However, there was no damage to the Despite repeated notices and warnings from the Court, no payment of fine was ever made as of
heirs of PERFECTO ZARCILLA because the land had long been sold to my mother and the sons September 3, 2010 as evidenced by a Certification18 which was issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme
and daughters no longer had no legal claim to the said land; Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer. On December 28, 2010, another Certification[19] was issued anew
showing no record of payment of fine by Atty. Quesada.
8. That SPOUSES MAXIMO QUEZADA & GLORIA QUEZADA did not falsify any
document because I was the one who facilitated the transaction knowing that the Thus, in a Resolution[20] dated March 9, 2011, the Court resolved to (1) increase the fine imposed on
land I was selling really belonged to me. Not one of my brothers and (sic) sisters Atty. Quesada to P3,000.00, or imprisonment often (10) days if such fine is not paid within the
never (sic) complained when I sold the land. I just delivered the document to the prescribed period; and (2) require Atty. Quesada to comply with the Resolution dated June 26,
Spouses MAXIMO QUEZADA & GLORIA QUEZADA including the title in their 2006 by submitting the required comment on the complaint.
name. I was paid the balance after the Certificate of Title in their name was finally delivered.[7]
All other respondents in the said falsification case, except for Atty. Quesada, also filed their No payment of fine was made as of July 12, 2011, as evidenced by a Certification[21] which was
respective counter-affidavits where they reiterated Bumanglag's admission.[8] issued by Araceli Bayuga, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer.

In a Resolution[9] dated April 14, 2003, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of La Union held It appearing that Atty. Quesada failed to comply with the numerous Resolutions of the Court to pay
Bumanglag only to undergo trial. All other respondents, including Atty. Quesada who did not even the fine imposed upon him and submit comment on the complaint against him, in a
file his counter-affidavit, were exonerated for insufficiency of evidence. Resolution[22] dated August 24, 2011, the Court ordered the arrest of Atty. Quesada, and directed
the NBI to arrest and detain him until he shall have compli[ed] with the Court's Resolution dated
Both Zarcilla and Bumanglag filed their respective motions for reconsideration, but both were March 9, 2011. Subsequently, the Court issued a Warrant of Arrest.[23]
denied. Consequently, Bumanglag was indicted for four counts of falsification of public documents
before the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Tomas, La Union, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 3594, Apparently forced by his looming detention, after five (5) years, Atty. Quesada filed his
3595, 3597, and 3598. Comment[24] dated October 10, 2011, in compliance with Resolution dated June 26, 2006. He
claimed that he is a victim of political harassment, vengeance and retribution, and that the instant cases, for it is only by such proceedings that the last word on the falsity or forgery can be uttered by
case against him was filed solely for the purpose of maligning his person. Attached to his a court of law with the legal competence to do so. A disbarment proceeding is not the occasion to
compliance was postal money order in the amount of P3,000.00 as payment for the fine imposed determine the issue of falsification or forgery simply because the sole issue to be addressed and
upon him. determined therein is whether or not the respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be an officer
of the court in the dispensation of justice. Accordingly, We decline to rule herein whether or not
In a Letter[25] dated October 10, 2011, Atty. Ricardo S. Pangan, Jr., Regional Director of the NBI, the respondent had committed the supposed falsification of the subject affidavit in the absence of
informed the Court that Atty. Quesada voluntarily surrendered before the agents of the NBI on the prior determination thereof in the appropriate proceeding.[29]
October 11, 2011, and claimed that he had already complied with the Resolution of the Court. Atty.
Quesada submitted a copy of his comment and payment of fine, thus, on the same day, Atty. We, however, noted that Atty. Quesada Violated the notarial law for his act of notarizing the: (1)
Quesada was immediately released from custody. Deed of Sale[30] dated April 12, 2002 purportedly executed by and between the spouses Maximo F.
Quezada and Gloria D. Quezada, the buyers, and complainant Zarcilla's parents, the spouses
On February 1, 2012, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla; and the (2) Joint Affidavit[31] dated March 20, 2002
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[26] purportedly executed by the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla for the reconstitution of
TCT No. T-18490, when in both occasions the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla could
During the mandatory conference before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), only no longer execute said documents and appear before Atty. Quesada since they have long been
Bumanglag and her counsel appeared. Atty. Quesada failed to appear thereto, thus, the mandatory deceased as evidenced by their death certificates. Tarcela Zarcilla died on January 9, 1988, while
conference was reset to July 11, 2012. However, on July 11, 2012, Atty. Quesada failed again to Perfecto Zarcilla died on March 4, 2001.[32]
appear, thus, the mandatory conference was reset anew to July 25, 2012. Meanwhile, Bumanglag
informed the IBP-CBD that co-complainant Romeo Zarcilla passed away in 2005. Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's
personal appearance before the notary public:
On July 23, 2012, Atty. Quesada requested that the mandatory conference be reset due to health
reasons. He submitted his Medical Certificate dated May 2, 2012 showing that he underwent a xxx
head operation and that he is still on recovery period.
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument
On July 25, 2012, Atty. Quesada failed again to appear, thus, the parties were directed to appear on or document -
August 23, 2012 and submit their respective verified position papers. However, on August 23,
2012, only Bumanglag and her counsel appeared, and Atty. Quesada failed to appear anew. Thus, (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
considering that the parties were duly notified of the hearing, the case was deemed submitted for (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public
resolution. through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the
On May 30, 2014, the IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation, recommended that very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and
respondent Atty. Quesada be disbarred from the practice of law. the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed
the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the
In a Resolution No. XXI-2015-097 dated January 31, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or
adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. deed. Here, Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing the deed of sale appeared to have been done to
perpetuate a fraud. This is more evident when he certified in the acknowledgment thereof that he
RULING knew the vendors and knew them to be the same persons who executed the document. When he
then solemnly declared that such appeared before him and acknowledged to him that the
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP. document was the vendor's free act and deed despite the fact that the vendors cannot do so as they
were already deceased, Atty. Quesada deliberately made false representations, and was not merely
A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather an negligent.
investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.[27] The issue to be determined is whether
respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Hence, Thus, by his actuations, Atty. Quesada violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a
an administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or lawyer when he notarized the deed of sale without all the affiant's personal appearance. His failure
failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or in this case, the failure of respondent to to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the
answer the charges against him despite numerous notices. notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the
function of notarization. The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of
However, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial the oath in an acknowledgment or  jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer
evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public
convincing and satisfactory proof. As in this case, considering the serious consequence of the policy and impressed with public interest.[33]
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.[28] Time and again, We have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. It is
invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may
Thus, in the instant case, the allegations of falsification or forgery against Atty. Quesada must be act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, thus,
competently proved because falsification or forgery cannot be presumed. As such, the allegations making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
should first be established and determined in appropriate proceedings, like in criminal or civil document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies
and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public membership in the Philippine Bar. Clearly, Atty. Quesada is unfit to discharge the duties of an
and appended to a private instrument.[34] officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We find respondent ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA JR.
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of GUILTY of gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of
conveyance would be undermined. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless continuing membership in the legal profession. He is, thus, ordered DISBARRED from the
the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared practice of law and his name stricken-off of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. We,
before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this likewise, REVOKE his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY
requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public.
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.[35]
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall forthwith
Aside from Atty. Quesada's violation of his duty as a notary public, what this Court find more record it in the personal file of respondent. All the Courts of the Philippines; the Integrated Bar of
deplorable was his defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive disregard of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its Chapters; and all administrative
the Court's directives to file his comment on the complaint. Despite several Court resolutions, and quasi-judicial agencies of the Republic of the Philippines.
notices, directives and imposition of fines for Atty. Quesada's compliance and payment, he ignored
the same for more than five years. Consequently, this case has dragged on for an unnecessary SO ORDERED.
length of time. More than five (5) years have already elapsed from the time the Court issued the
first Resolution dated June 26, 2006 which required Atty. Quesada to file his comment until his
eventual submission of comment on October 10, 2011. It took a warrant of arrest to finally move
Atty. Quesada to file his Comment and pay the fines imposed upon him. While the Court has been
tolerant of his obstinate refusal to comply with its directives, he shamelessly ignored the same and
Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime
wasted the Court's time and resources.
involving moral turpitude - A.C. No. 7940
A.C. No. 7940
And even with the submission of his comment, he did not offer any apology and/or any
justification for his long delay in complying with the directives/orders of this Court. We surmised
that when Atty. Quesada finally complied with the Court's directives, his compliance was neither "x x x.
prompted by good faith or willingness to obey the Court nor was he remorseful of his infractions
but was actually only forced to do so considering his impending arrest. There is, thus, no question The Issue Presented
that his failure or obstinate refusal without justification or valid reason to comply with the Court's
directives constitutes disobedience or defiance of the lawful orders of Court, amounting to gross
misconduct and insubordination or disrespect.[36] The only issue presented in this case is whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after
conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification.
Atty. Quesada's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court, which under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself alone is a sufficient cause for suspension or
disbarment. His cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court The Court’s Ruling
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. His conduct indicates a high degree of In his pleadings before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Pactolin reiterated the
irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held that a Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a defenses he raised before the Sandiganbayan and this Court in the falsification case. He claims that the
mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Atty. Court glossed over the facts, that its decision and referral to the IBP was “factually infirmed” [3]  and
Quesada's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw contained “factual exaggerations and patently erroneous observation,” [4] and was “too adventurous.”[5]
in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which this Court will
not tolerate."[37] To recapitulate, this Court upheld the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the copy of Abastillas’
letter which Atty. Pactolin attached to his complaint was spurious.  Given the clear absence of a satisfactory
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: explanation regarding his possession and use of the falsified Abastillas’ letter, this Court held that the
Sandiganbayan did not err in concluding that it was Atty. Pactolin who falsified the letter.  This Court relied
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member on the settled rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used
of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. [6]
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order This Court’s decision in said falsification case had long become final and executory.  In In Re:
of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo,[7] the Court held that in disbarment cases, it is no longer called upon to review
without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally the judgment of conviction which has become final.  The review of the conviction no longer rests upon this
or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. Court.
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended on
highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral
processes.[38] Considering Atty. Quesada's predisposition to disregard not only the laws of the land conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful
but also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for
honesty, probity and good demeanor. Worse, with his repeated disobedience to this Court's orders, a party to a case without authority so to do.
Atty. Quesada displayed no remorse as to his misconduct which, thus, proved himself unworthy of
 This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, The complainant returned to the respondent’s office. Respondent showed her the petition for annulment,
honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. [8]  Moral turpitude includes everything and asked her to sign it. She paid to him an initial amount of P4,000.00. He acknowledged the payment
which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.  It involves an act of baseness, through a handwritten receipt.
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.[9]
The complainant again went to the respondent’s office to deliver another partial payment, and to follow up
on the case. The respondent advised her to just wait for the resolution of her complaint, and assured her
Having said that, what penalty should be imposed then on Atty. Pactolin?
that she did not need to appear in court. He explained that all the court notices and processes would be
sent to his office, and that he would regularly apprise her of the developments. She returned to his office to
As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe
complete her payment, and he also issued his receipt for the payment.
form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a
member of the bar. [10]  Yet this Court has also consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate
penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. [11] The complainant’s daughter Vanessa thereafter made several follow- ups on behalf of her mother. The
respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been granted. Thus, Vanessa went to the
Here, Atty. Pactolin’s disbarment is warranted.  The Sandiganbayan has confirmed that respondent’s office and received a copy of the trial court’s decision signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino.
although his culpability for falsification has been indubitably established, he has not yet served his
sentence.  His conduct only exacerbates his offense and shows that he falls short of the exacting standards
expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession. [12]
According to the complainant, the respondent advised her to allow five months to lapse after the release of
the decision before she could safely claim the status of “single.” After the lapse of such time, she declared
This Court once again reminds all lawyers that they, of all classes and professions, are most
in her Voter’s Registration Record (VRR) that she was single.
sacredly bound to uphold the law. [13]  The privilege to practice law is bestowed only upon individuals who
are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally.  As such, lawyers must at all
times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[14] The complainant, again through Vanessa, received from the respondent a copy of the certificate of
finality dated September 26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin is hereby DISBARRED and his nameREMOVED from the
Rolls of Attorney.  Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal records and furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of thePhilippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation
to all courts in the country. Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision and
certificate of finality in applying for the renewal of her passport. However, she became the object of an
SO ORDERED. investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her former partner, Andrew Dowson
Grainge, had filed a complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of her
MADRIA V. RIVERA marriage.

AC No. 11256 | March 7, 2017 Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate of finality given by the respondent did not
exist in the court records, as borne out by the letter signed by Atty. Aura Clarissa B. Tabag- Querubin, Clerk
of Court of the RTC Branch IV, to wit – As per records of this Court, the above- entitled case was filed on
April 25, 2003 but was dismissed as per Order of this Court dated April 6, 2004. The signature of the [sic]
By: Karen P. Lustica
Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino as appearing in the alleged decision attached to your letter is a blatant forgery.

FACTS:
As a result, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act. She claims
that she had relied in good faith on the representations of the respondent; and that he had taken
advantage of his position in convincing her to part with her money and to rely on the falsified court
Complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the respondent to inquire about the process of annulling her document.
marriage with her husband, Juan C. Madria. After giving the details of her marriage and other facts
relevant to the annulment, the respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he
could obtain for her the decree of annulment. He told her, too, that his legal services would cost
The respondent denies the allegations of the complainant. He averred that he had informed her that he
P25,000.00.
would still be carefully reviewing the grounds to support her petition; that she had insisted that he should
prepare the draft of her petition that she could show to her foreigner fiance; that she had also prevailed
upon him to simulate the court decision to the effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate
the certificate of finality; that she had assured him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
confidential; that he had informed her that the petition had been filed in April 2003, but she had paid no TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
attention to such information; that she had not appeared in any of the scheduled hearings despite notice;
and that he had not heard from her since then, and that she had not even returned to his office.
Rule 15.07. – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness.
IBP concluded that the respondent had violated his Lawyer’s Oath; and recommended his suspension
from the practice of law for a period of two years. The IBP Board of Governors modified it to disbarment.
Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer’s Oath to “do no
falsehood, nor consent to its commission,” Indeed; the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined
ISSUE: every lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course
of his practice of law.

WON ATTY. RIVERA should be disbarred

Also, Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility required the
respondent be true to the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary responsibility for
the sake of getting her money, he committed a further violation of his Lawyer’s Oath by which he swore
HELD:YES.
not to “delay any man’s cause for money or malice,” and to “conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to
the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his]
clients.” He compounded this violation by taking advantage of his legal knowledge to promote his own
RATIO: selfish motives, thereby disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17

The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of the Under Section 27,23 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred on any of the following
simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only upon the grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct;
complainant’s persistent prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the explanation is (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful
unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court decision disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer
and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery. One need for a party to a case without authority so to do.
not be a lawyer to know so, but it was worse in the respondent’s case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his
acts were legally intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court decision and the
certificate of finality of the decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office, any of
mockery of the administration of justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a
which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
member of the Bar.

We note that the respondent was previously sanctioned for unprofessional conduct. In Cruz- Villanueva v.
The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07,
Rivera he was suspended from the practice of law because he had notarized documents without a notarial
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
commission. This circumstance shows his predisposition to beguile other persons into believing in the
documents that he had falsified or simulated. It is time to put a stop to such proclivity. He should be quickly
removed through disbarment.
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most imperative
reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. officer of the court and member of the bar. But we do not hesitate when the misconduct is gross, like in the
respondent’s case.

Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system. DISPOSITION: DISBARMENT