Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45932:ac-4585&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:24:14+00:00

Document:
MICHAEL P. BARRIOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ, Respondent.
Complainant further submitted our Resolution dated 13 March 1996 and the Entry of Judgment from this Court dated 20 March 1996.
On 05 April 1999, the National Bureau of Investigation reported9 that respondent was arrested in Tacloban City on 26 March 1999, but was subsequently released after having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of 17 February 1997 and 27 April 1998 by remitting the amount of P2,000 and submitting his long overdue Comment.
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was decided in respondent's favor (as plaintiff in the said case). Respondent avers that as a result of his moving for the execution of judgment in his favor and the eviction of the family of herein complainant Michael Barrios, the latter filed the present administrative case.
In the meantime, on 11 September 1997, a certain Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter11 to the First Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another estafa case before the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 9, as well as a civil case involving the victims of the DoÃ±a Paz tragedy in 1987, for which the Regional Trial Court of Basey, Samar, Branch 30 rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
In the said Decision of Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Basey, Samar,12 it appears that herein respondent Atty. Martinez offered his legal services to the victims of the DoÃ±a Paz tragedy for free. However, when the plaintiff in the said civil case was issued a check for P90,000 by Sulpicio Lines representing compensation for the deaths of his wife and two daughters, Atty. Martinez asked plaintiff to endorse said check, which was then deposited in the account of Dr. Martinez, Atty. Martinez's wife. When plaintiff asked for his money, he was only able to recover a total of P30,000. Atty. Martinez claimed the remaining P60,000 as his attorney's fees. Holding that it was "absurd and totally ridiculous that for a simple legal service - he would collect 2/3 of the money claim," the trial court ordered Atty. Martinez to pay the plaintiff therein the amount of P60,000 with interest, P5,000 for moral and exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.
On 16 June 1999, we referred14 the present case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Several dates for the hearing of the case were scheduled but none of the parties appeared before the Commission, until finally it was considered submitted for resolution last 27 June 2002. On the same date respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the complainant died sometime in June 1997 and that dismissal is warranted because "the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise; as a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death."
We disagree with respondent's contention.
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the Honorable Supreme Court or the IBP may motu proprio initiate the proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers which deserve sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and a probable cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a lawyer which requires disciplinary sanctions.
As earlier cited, respondent lawyer's propensity to disregard or ignore orders of the Honorable Supreme Court for which he was fined twice, arrested and imprisoned reflects an utter lack of good moral character.
Respondent's conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (estafa and/or violation of BP Blg. 22) clearly shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him (see In re: Abesamis, 102 Phil. 1182; In re: Jaramillo, 101 Phil. 323; In re: Vinzon, 19 SCRA 815; Medina v. Bautista, 12 SCRA 1, People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 Jan. 1990).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez be disbarred and his name stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately.
On 27 September 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution16 adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner.
3. Respondent is now 71 years of age, and has served the judiciary in various capacities (from acting city judge to Municipal Judges League Leyte Chapter President) for almost 17 years prior to resuming his law practice.
On 14 January 2004, we required18 complainant to file a comment within ten days. On 16 February 2004, we received a Manifestation and Motion19 from complainant's daughter, Diane Francis Barrios Latoja, alleging that they had not been furnished with a copy of respondent's Motion, notwithstanding the fact that respondent ostensibly lives next door to complainant's family. Required to Comment on 17 May 2004, respondent has until now failed to do so.
The records show that respondent, indeed, failed to furnish a copy of said Motion to herein complainant. The records also show that respondent was given several opportunities to present evidence by this Court20 as well as by the IBP.21 Indeed, he only has himself to blame, for he has failed to present his case despite several occasions to do so. It is now too late in the day for respondent to ask this court to receive his evidence.
This court, moreover, is unwilling to exercise the same patience that it did when it waited for his comment on the original petition. At any rate, after a careful consideration of the records of the instant case, we find the evidence on record sufficient to support the IBP's findings.
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a 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 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 of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
Nor are we inclined to look with favor upon respondent's plea that if "given another chance to have his day in court and to adduce evidence, the result/outcome would be entirely different from that arrived at." We note with displeasure the inordinate length of time respondent took in responding to our requirement to submit his Comment on the original petition to disbar him. These acts constitute a willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court, which under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself a cause sufficient for suspension or disbarment. Thus, from the time we issued our first Resolution on 03 July 1996 requiring him to submit his Comment, until 16 March 1999, when he submitted said Comment to secure his release from arrest, almost three years had elapsed.
It is revealing that despite the unwarranted length of time it took respondent to comply, his Comment consists of all of two pages, a copy of which, it appears, he neglected to furnish complainant.34 And while he claims to have been confined while undergoing medical treatment at the time our Resolution of 17 February 1997 was issued, he merely reserved the submission of a certification to that effect. Nor, indeed, was he able to offer any explanation for his failure to submit his Comment from the time we issued our first Resolution of 03 July 1996 until 16 March 1999. In fact, said Comment alleged, merely, that the complainant, Michael Barrios, passed away sometime in June 1997, and imputed upon the latter unsupported ill-motives for instituting the said Petition against him, which argument has already been resolved squarely in the abovementioned IBP report.
Moreover, the IBP report cited the failure of both parties to appear before the Commission as the main reason for the long delay, until the same was finally submitted for Resolution on 27 June 2002. Respondent, therefore, squandered away seven years to "have his day in court and adduce evidence" in his behalf, which inaction also unduly delayed the court's prompt disposition of this petition.
For the same reasons, we are disinclined to take respondent's old age and the fact that he served in the judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all, we hold respondent to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence,38 and his conduct should be above reproach.39 The fact that respondent has chosen to engage in private practice does not mean he is now free to conduct himself in less honorable - or indeed in a less than honorable - manner.
We stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege,40 demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law.41 Sadly, herein respondent falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. We agree.
We come now to the matter of the penalty imposable in this case. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we upheld the imposition of one year's suspension for non-payment of debt and issuance of worthless checks, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.42 However, in these cases, for various reasons, none of the issuances resulted in a conviction by the erring lawyers for either estafa or B.P. Blg. 22. Thus, we held therein that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.
In the instant case, however, herein respondent has been found guilty and stands convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. In People v. Tuanda, which is similar to this case in that both respondents were convicted for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 which we have held to be such a crime, we affirmed the order of suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals, until further orders.
3. In Ledesma De Jesus-Paras v. Quinciano Vailoces,47 the erring lawyer acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be a last will and testament, which later turned out to be a forgery. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public document, which the Court held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, said act being contrary to justice, honesty and good morals, and was subsequently disbarred.
4. In In Re: Disbarment Proceedings Against Atty. Diosdado Q. Gutierrez,48 Atty. Gutierrez was convicted for murder. After serving a portion of the sentence, he was granted a conditional pardon by the President. Holding that the pardon was not absolute and thus did not reach the offense itself but merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term, the court nevertheless disbarred him.
6. In In Re: Attorney Jose AvanceÃ±a,51 the conditional pardon extended to the erring lawyer by the Chief Executive also failed to relieve him of the penalty of disbarment imposed by this court.
7. In In Re Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo,52 a lawyer was charged and found guilty of the crime of falsification of public document for having prepared and notarized a deed of sale of a parcel of land knowing that the supposed affiant was an impostor and that the vendor had been dead for almost eight years. We ruled that disbarment follows as a consequence of a lawyer's conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude, and since the crime of falsification of public document involves moral turpitude, we ordered respondent's name stricken off the roll of attorneys.
9. In Victoriano P. Resurreccion v. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson,55 a lawyer was disbarred for having been convicted of estafa by final judgment for misappropriating the funds of his client.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is hereby dISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondent's record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
1 16 May 1996, filed by Michael P. Barrios, Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3.
2 Entitled People of the Philippines v. Francisco Martinez for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 09899 and by this Court in G.R. No. 118049.
3 Per Order, dated 10 May 1996, of Judge Mateo Leanda of the said trial court, Rollo, Vol. I, p. 4.
4 Resolution, Id. at 23.
5 Resolution, Id. at 30.
6 Resolution, Id. at 33.
7 Resolution, Id. at 79.
8 Resolution, Id. at 97.
9 Letter from NBI Supervising Agent Arlis Vela to Second Division Clerk of Court Teresita Magay-Dris, Id. at 100.
14 Resolution, Id. at 125.
15 Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 200-205.
18 Resolution, Id. at 219.
20 Resolutions dated 3 July 1996, 17 February 1997, 7 July 1997, 27 April 1998, 3 February 1999; supra, Note Nos. 4-8.
21 IBP Order dated 08 February 2000, Records p. 156; Notice of Hearing dated 29 November 2001, Records, p. 163, Order dated 24 January 2002, Records, p. 169; Order dated 27 June 2002, Records, p. 183.
22 In the Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, Adm. Case No. 229, 30 April 1957, 101 Phil 323; De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, 12 April 1961, 111 Phil 569.
23 In re Basa, 7 December 1920, 41 Phil. 275.
24 Villaber v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 148326, 15 November 2001, 369 SCRA 126, citing Dela Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, 05 July 1996, 258 SCRA 483.
25 Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 692.
27 Supra, Note No. 24.
29 Adm. Case No. 6408, 31 August 2004.
30 Co v. Bernardino, Adm. Case No. 3919, 28 January 1998, 285 SCRA 102, citing In Re Pelaez, 3 March 1923, 44 Phil 567 and In Re Sotto, No. 14576, 6 September 1918, 38 Phil 532.
31 In re MacDougall, No. 1167, 16 December 1903, 3 Phil 70, 78.
32 Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, Adm. Case No. 2884, 28 January 1998, 285 SCRA 93.
33 Ibid; Nakpil v. Valdes, Adm. Case No. 2040, 4 March 1998, 286 SCRA 758; Calub v. Suller, Adm. Case No. 1474, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 556; Cruz v. Jacinto, Adm. Case No. 5235, 22 March 2000, 328 SCRA 636.
34 Manifestation and Motion of Diane Frances Barrios Latoja dated 06 February 2004, Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 253 to 255. Respondent has failed to comment within the period given him to do so.
35 G.R. No. L-29543, 29 November 1969, 30 SCRA 748.
37 In The Matter Of Attorney Lope E. Adriano, Member of the Philippine Bar, People of the Philippines v. Remigio Estebia, G.R. No. L-26868, 27 February 1969, 27 SCRA 106; People v. Rosqueta, G.R. No. L-36138, 31 January 1974, 55 SCRA 486; People v. Manangan, G.R. NOS. L-32918-19, 30 April 1974, 56 SCRA 817; People v. Dalusag, G.R. No. L-38988, 25 February 1975, 62 SCRA 540; Casals v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-35766, 12 July 1973, 52 SCRA 58.
38 Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct, 05 September 1989.
39 Canon 31, Canons of Judicial Ethics (Administrative Order No. 62, Department of Justice, 01 August 1946).
40 Dumadag v. Lumaya, Adm. Case No. 2614, 29 June 2000, 334 SCRA 513; NBI v. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120, 21 February 2000, 326 SCRA 109.
41 Supra, Note No. 28; supra, Note No. 26.
42 Supra, Note No. 25.
43 Adm. Case No. 229, 30 April 1957, 101 Phil 323.
45 Adm. Case No. 350, 07 August 1959, 106 Phil 1.
47 Adm. Case No. 439, 12 April 1961, 111 Phil 569.
48 Adm. Case No. 363, 31 July 1962, 115 Phil 647.
49 Adm. Case No. 561, 27 April 1967, 126 Phil 96.
51 Adm. Case No. 407, 15 August 1967, 127 Phil 426.
52 Adm. Case No. 2410, 23 October 1982, 203 Phil 79.
53 CBD Case No. 251, 11 July 1995, 245 SCRA 707.
55 Adm. Case No. 1037, 14 December 1998, 300 SCRA 129.
56 Supra, Note No. 44, p. 651, citing Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 263, 27 Law Ed., 552, 556.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.