You are on page 1of 3

ROBERTO SORIANO v. ATTY MANUEL DIZON AC no.

6792 | January 25, 2006 FACTS Atty Manuel Dizon was driving under the influence of alcohol along Abanao st. in Baguio city when a taxi overtook him. Enraged, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over and berated and threatened Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver. To stop the aggression, Soriano opened his door which caused Dizon to fall to the pavement. Soriano tried to help Dizon up but had to punch Dizon because he was going to punch him. Soriano prevented another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to his car to get his gun, the handle wrapped in handkerchief. Dizon shot Soriano who was then picking up Dizon s eyeglasses to return it to him. After shooting Soriano, Dizon sped off with his car and left him to die on the street. The bullet hit Soriano in the neck and lacerated his carotid artery. According to the doctors who treated Soriano, he would have easily died if not for the timely medical assistance. Nevertheless, the left side of Soriano s body was paralyzed, leaving him unable to drive anymore. A complaint for Frustrated Homicide was filed against Dizon by Soriano. Dizon was eventually found guilty but was allowed probation. One of the conditions of the probation is the payment of the civil liabilities. Four years after the judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil obligation to Soriano. A Complain-Affidavit for disbarment was filed by Soriano before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Dizon was declared in default and an exparte hearing was held. The Commissioner of the CBD recommended to the IBP the disbarment of Dizon for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner and sent its resolution to the Supreme Court. ISSUES

1. Whether the crime committed by Atty Dizon involved moral turpitude. 2. Whether Atty Dizon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting his disbarment. RULING The Supreme Court approved the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and ordered the disbarment of Atty Manuel Dizon. 1st Issue The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner that the frustrated homicide committed by Atty Dizon was attended by moral turpitude. The Court defined moral turpitude as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Atty Dizon exhibited moral turpitude when he shot a taxi driver for no valid reason. His act did not constitute self-defense. In fact, he was the aggressor. It was him who first tried to punch the other. Soriano was merely defending himself and fending off the aggression when he counterpunched Dizon. Furthermore, the trial court also ruled that the crime was committed with treachery. Dizon shot Soriano when he was not in a position to defend himself. Soriano was picking up Dizon s eyeglasses which fell on the road when Dizon fell to return it to him when he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in handkerchief. He intended not to leave fingerprints on the gun he used. 2nd Issue The Supreme Court also ruled that there was indeed a violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 provides that lawyers must obey the laws of the land and promote respect or law and legal processes. Atty Dizon was in violation of the law because he was in illegal

possession of an unlicensed firearm. He also failed to obey the lawful orders of the trial court when he failed to settle his civil liabilities, a condition for the grant of the probation. Atty Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Dizon tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed, he instead made it look like it was the family who approached him to get a referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story saying that it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him. According to three doctors, there was no proof of assault on Soriano.

You might also like