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.

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT (RULE 138, SECTION 27, RULES OF COURT)

SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. -
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any

1. deceit;
2. malpractice;
3. other gross misconduct in such office;
4. grossly immoral conduct;
5. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
6. for violation of the oath, which he is required to take before admission to practice;
7. for a wilful disobedience of any order of the superior court; or
8. for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

UY V. SANO (DISBARMENT)

This is a disbarment case filed by complainant Uy against respondent Sano for allegedly notarizing several documents despite the expiration of his commission.

It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege with conditions.

It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those whoa re qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. It must be underscored that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost case the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

To be sure, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefor as reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of public documents. For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.

TOLEDO V. TOLEDO (DISBARMENT, JUDICIAL CONDUCT, VIOLATION OF CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY )

This Court has previously defined IMMORAL CONDUCT as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.

This Court has held that to justify SUSPENSION or DISBARMENT, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, and the same must be established by clean and convincing proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power. Likewise, the dubious character of the act done as well as the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated.

Thus, to warrant disciplinary action, we must examine if respondent's relationship with his common-law wife as "grossly immoral conduct."

In disbarment cases, this Court has ruled that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behaviour. whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct" will depend on the surrounding circumstances."

Based on the allegations in the Complaint and in respondent's Comment, we cannot conclude that his act of cohabiting with a woman and begetting children by her without the benefit of marriage falls within the category of "grossly immoral conduct."

While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not within our authority to make, for our employees, decisions about their personal lives, especially those that will so affect their and their family's future, such as whether they should or should not be married.

OVERGAARD V. VALDEZ (DISBARMENT)

Lawyer Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility by having taken full retainer's fee and not having done anything regarding Complainant Overgaard's cases to the latter's prejudice and dismay.

Rule 139, Sec. 27 Grounds for DISBARMENT/suspension:

• deceit
• malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office
• grossly immoral conduct
• conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
• violation of the lawyer's oath
• willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court
• willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority

Respondent Valdez had indubitably fallen below the exacting standards demanded of members of the bar.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

• A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
• A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
• A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
• A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
• A lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
• A lawyer shall account for all money and property collected or received for and from the client.

Respondent Valdez did exactly the opposite.

The PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT A PRIVILEGE. It is granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.

In this case, SC finds that suspension for 3 years recommended by the IBP is not sufficient punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of Respondent Valdez. For violating elementary principles of professional ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good faith, respondent has proven himself unworthy of membership in this noble profession.

DISBARRED.