FACTS:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court
of Appeals involving a Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance
of a Writ of Execution before the Regional Arbitration Branch which the
respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After
the lapse of five (5) months, complainant’s motion remained unacted, prompting
him to file a Second Motion for Execution.
However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to give
respondent a portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from
the former how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of
execution but the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ.
Eventually, issued a new writ of execution wherein complainant’s monetary
awards were reduced to the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA.
Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant
in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to
give benefit and advantage to PT&T, complainant’s employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and
1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under
Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule
1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes
lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for
any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed
to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using one’s public
position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or
(3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to
note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member
of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as
a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross
misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the
line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of
decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or
wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation,
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found
guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred.However, the Court
takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a
previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios,
Jr., which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the
same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a
fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondent’s
transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the
same or similar acts in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment