ARMA V. MONTEVILLA (JUDICIAL ETHICS)

A perusal of the records shows that the evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to warrant disbarment.

DISBARMENT is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, 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 member of the bar.

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated.

In this case, the complainant failed to discharge this burden. In addition, the complainant failed to refute the fact alleged by the respondent that the complaint is a vindictive charge of a stubborn client against her counsel who refused to extrajudicially execute a monetary judgment in order not to jeopardize honesty and loyalty to the other clients. It must be noted, likewise, that this Court affords protection not only to the aggrieved clients but also to members of the bar who are at times, maliciously charged.

However, it is worthy to note that respondent indeed fell short of her duty of meticulously ensuring that all pleadings are properly filed and served on the concerned parties. Atty. Montevilla was remiss when she passed on he filing of her Motion to Withdraw as Counsel to her client. Because of this negligence, the Motion to Withdraw was belatedly filed, and the eventual Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC decision was resultantly file out of time, thus, causing the dismissal of the complainant's case before the NLRC.

Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a less severe punishment if through it, the end desired of reforming the errant lawyer is possible.

In this case, the negligence of the respondent is not so gross as to justify removal from the legal profession. that there is no material damage to the complainant may be considered as a mitigating circumstance and this being Atty, Montevilla's first offense, she should be entitled to some measure of forbearance. A penalty other than disbarment may satisfactorily forewarn the respondent and other members of the bar to be more cautious and diligent in the practice of their profession.