EN BANC Adm. Case No. 2474 , September 15, 2004 EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Complainant, versus - ATTY.

LEO J. PALMA, Respondent.

The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar, the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk of suspension or removal.1[1] Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct. The facts are undisputed: Complainant and respondent met sometime in the 70s. Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Owing to his growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire respondent as his personal counsel. Consequently, respondents relationship with complainants family became intimate. He traveled and dined with them abroad.2[2] He frequented their house and even tutored complainants 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco (Lisa), then a student of Assumption Convent. On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainants family, respondent married Lisa in Hongkong. It was only the next day that respondent informed complainant and assured him that everything is legal. Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a married man and has three children. Upon investigation, complainant found that respondent courted Lisa during their tutoring sessions. Immediately, complainant sent his two sons to Hongkong to convince Lisa to go home to Manila and discuss the matter with the family. Lisa was persuaded. Complainant also came to know that: (a) on the date of the supposed marriage, respondent requested from his (complainants) office an airplane ticket to and from Australia, with stop-over in Hong Kong; (b) respondent misrepresented himself as bachelor before the Hong Kong authorities to facilitate his marriage with Lisa; and (c) respondent was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has three children, namely: Eugene Philippe, Elias Anton and Eduardo Lorenzo.

1[1]

In re Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. L-363, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 661.

2[2]

Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), April 21, 1983 at 49-51.

On August 24, 1982, complainant filed with the Court of First Instance, Branch XXVII, Pasay City a petition3[3] for declaration of nullity of the marriage between respondent and Lisa, docketed as Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P. In the Decision4[4] dated November 2, 1982, the CFI declared the marriage null and void ab initio. Thereafter, complainant filed with this Court the instant complaint5[5] for disbarment, imputing to respondent the following acts:
a. In grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant and his family and taking undue advantage of his tutoring sessions with Maria Luisa, respondent secretly courted her. The great disparity in intelligence, education, age, experience and maturity between Maria Luisa and respondent gave the latter an overwhelming moral ascendancy over Maria Luisa as to overcome her scruples and apprehensions about respondents courtship and advances, considering that he is a married man with three (3) children;

b. Respondent courted Maria Luisa with persistence and determination and even pursued her in her travels abroad under false pretenses that he was traveling on official business for complainant. To break down the final resistance of Maria Luisa and assuage her pangs of guilt, he made representations that there was no legal impediment whatsoever to his marrying;

c. With his moral ascendancy over Maria Luisa and his misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his contracting a second marriage, respondent succeeded in inducing and beguiling her into marrying him. Without complying with the requirements of Philippine law that he should first obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Elizabeth H. Palma and that the advice of Maria Luisas parents should first be obtained she being only twenty -two (22) years of age, respondent succeeded in contracting marriage with her in Hongkong on June 22, 1982 by falsely representing himself before the Hongkong authorities that he is a bachelor. x x x.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss6[6] on the ground of lack of cause of action. He contended that the complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of his lawyers oath. There is no allegation that he acted with wanton recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of the law in serving complainants interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed that he married complainants daughter with utmost sincerity and good faith and that it is contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.

3[3] 4[4] 5[5] 6[6]

Annex D, Complaint, Rollo at 13-19. Annex F, id. at 32-36. Dated November 8, 1982, id. at 1-6. Dated February 8, 1983, id. at 53-56.

In the Resolution7[7] dated March 2, 1983, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation. Former Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili conducted the investigation. Meanwhile, on December 28, 1983, the First Division of this Court issued in G.R. No. 645388[8] a Resolution9[9] (a) setting aside the CFI Decision dated November 2, 1982 in Civil Case No. Pq0401-P declaring the marriage between respondent and Lisa null and void ab initio; and (b) remanding the case to the CFI for proper proceeding and determination. To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case. On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings10[10] on the ground that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pq0401-P poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding. It was denied. Respondent sought refuge in this Court through an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Restraining Order.11[11] In the Resolution dated December 19, 1984, we enjoined the OSG from continuing the investigation of the disbarment proceedings.12[12] Thereafter, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. On October 19, 1998, Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo issued the following order:
Considering the length of time that this case has remained pending and as a practical measure to ease the backlog of this Commission, the parties shall within ten (10) days from notice, manifest whether or not they are still interested in prosecuting this case or supervening events have transpired

7[7] 8[8]

Supra. Leo J. Palma vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, etc.

In Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P, for declaration of nullity of marriage mentioned earlier, the trial court issued an order dated January 17, 1983 denying respondents motion for reconsideration/new trial. This prompted him to file with this Court a petition for certiorari assailing the said order.

In this Resolution, this Court ordered respondent judge to conduct a new trial in the case below and to allow petitioner to file his answer, which answer should be filed within ten (10) days from finality of this Resolution. The records show that respondent judge acted with undue haste in declaring petitioner in default on the complaint filed on August 24, 1982 and in rendering his ex parte decision of November 2, 1982 as well as in refusing to give due course to the timely appeal filed by petitioner and instead ordering the execution of the judgment.

9[9] 10[10] 11[11]

Rollo, at 197-198. Id. at 199 - 201. Dated December 13, 1984.

12[12] OSG Records at 5. The OSG issued the Order dated December 20, 1984 suspending the scheduled hearing until the Court orders otherwise. (OSG Records at 1)

which render this case moot and academic or otherwise, this case shall be deemed closed and terminated.13[13]

In his Manifestation,14[14] complainant manifested and confirmed his continuing interest in prosecuting his complaint for disbarment against respondent. On the other hand, respondent sought several postponements of hearing on the ground that he needed more time to locate vital documents in support of his defense. The scheduled hearing of December 4, 2001 was reset for the last time on January 24, 2002, with a warning that should he fail to appear or present deposition, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.15[15] Respondent again failed to appear on January 24, 2002; hence, the case was considered submitted for resolution.16[16] On March 20, 2003, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years. Thus:
The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent committed the following acts which warrant his disbarment: a) Grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant;

b) His misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his contracting a second marriage; c) The acts of respondent constitute deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. Respondent admits that he married Maria Luisa in Hongkong representing himself as a bachelor, however, he claimed that the marriage certificate stated a condition no different from term spinster with respect to Luisa. There is no question that respondent as a lawyer well versed in the law knew fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The respondent betrayed the trust reposed in him by complainant. He was treated as part of the family and was allowed to tutor Maria Luisa. For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.
SO ORDERED.

13[13] 14[14] 15[15] 16[16]

Records of the Commission on Bar Discipline at 11. Dated November 13, 1998, id. at 13. Order dated December 4, 2001, id. at 51. Order dated January 24, 2002, id. at 97.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation, but it reduced respondents penalty to only one (1) year suspension. Except for the penalty, we affirm the IBPs Report and Recommendation. At the outset, it must be stressed that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.17[17] Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.18[18] Respondent claims that he had served complainant to the best of his ability. In fact, the complaint does not allege that he acted with wanton recklessness, lack of skill and ignorance of the law. While, complainant himself admitted that respondent was a good lawyer,19[19] however, professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable requirement. The ringing truth in this case is that respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima. The Certification20[20] from the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City shows that he married Elizabeth on December 19, 1971 at Cardials Private Chapel, Cebu City. On the other hand, the Certificate of Marriage21[21] from the Deputy Registrar of Marriages, Hong Kong, proves respondents subsequent marriage with Lisa on July 9, 1982. That Elizabeth was alive at the time of respondents second marriage was confirmed on the witness stand by Atty. Victor P. Lazatin, Elizabeths classmate and family friend.22[22] Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of
17[17] 18[18] In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970). Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Alejandro, et al., AC No. 4256, February 13, 2004. Rule 7.03, Canon 7 provides: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

19[19] 20[20] 21[21] 22[22]

TSN, April 21, 1983, at 98. Annex A, Rollo at 7. Annex C and Annex D, id., at 12 and 13. TSN, July 12, 1982, at 1-42.

that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.23[23] This is not the first occasion that we censure immorality. Thus, we have somehow come up with a common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, i.e., 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.24[24] Measured against this definition, respondents act is manifestly immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land. Our rulings in the following cases are relevant: 1) In Macarrubo vs. Macarrubo,25[25] respondent entered into multiple marriages and then resorted to legal remedies to sever them. There, we ruled that *S+uch pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions that this society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole. As such, there can be no other fate that awaits respondent than to be disbarred. (2) In Tucay vs. Tucay,26[26] respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and left complainant with whom he has been married for thirty years. We ruled that such acts constitute a grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession, warranting respondents disbarment. (3) In Villasanta vs. Peralta,27[27] respondent married complainant while his first wife was still alive, their marriage still valid and subsisting. We held that the act of respondent of contracting the second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Thus, lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, respondent was disqualified from being admitted to the bar. (4) In Cabrera vs. Agustin,28[28] respondent lured an innocent woman into a simulated marriage and thereafter satisfied his lust. We held that respondent failed to maintain that degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of members of the bar. He is, therefore, disbarred from the practice of law.

23[23] 24[24] 25[25] 26[26] 27[27] 28[28]

Villasanta vs. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313 (1957). 7 C.J.S. 959. Adm. Case. No. 6148, February 27, 2004. A.C. No. 5170, November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA 229. 101 Phil.313 (1957). 106 Phil. 256 (1960).

(5) In Toledo vs. Toledo,29[29] respondent abandoned his wife, who supported him and spent for his law education, and thereafter cohabited with another woman. We ruled that he failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar. For this, respondent was disbarred.

(6) In Obusan vs. Obusan, Jr.,30[30] respondent abandoned his lawful wife and child and resumed cohabitation with his former paramour. Here, we ruled that abandoning ones wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment. The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was respondents closeness to the complainants family as well as the latters complete trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainants legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latters back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of complainants resources by securing a plane ticket from complainants office in order to marry the latters daughter in Hongkong. He did this without complainants knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure complainant that everything is legal. Clearly, respondent had crossed the limits of propriety and decency. Respondent justified his conduct by professing he really loved Lisa and since he married her, he cannot be charged with immorality. His reasoning shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard on the sanctity of marriage. In such relationship, the man and the woman are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity.31[31] How could respondent perform these obligations to Lisa when he was previously married to Elizabeth? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away. Respondents culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just a 22-year old college student of Assumption Convent and was under psychological treatment for emotional immaturity.32[32] Naturally, she was an easy prey. Anent respondents argument that since the validity of his marriage to Lisa has not yet been determined by the court with finality, the same poses a prejudicial question to the present disbarment proceeding. Suffice it to say that a subsequent judgment of annulment of marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. As we held in In re Almacen,33[33] a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal
29[29] 30[30] 117 SCRA768, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963. 128 SCRA 485, Adm. Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984.

31[31] 32[32]

Article 109 of the Civil Code. TSN, April 21, 1983 at 90-93.

33[33]

31 Phil. 562 (1970).

but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him,34[34] or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course,35[35] then the judgment of annulment of respondents marriage does not also exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof --clear preponderance of evidence --- in disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar is met, then liability attaches.36[36] The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. This is founded on the lawyers primordial duty to society as spelled out in Canon 1 which states:
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

It is not by coincidence that the drafters of our Code of Professional Responsibility ranked the above responsibility first in the enumeration. They knew then that more than anybody else, it is the lawyers -- the disciples of law -- who are most obliged to venerate the law. As stated in Ex Parte Wall:37[37]
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.

Corollarily, the above responsibility is enshrined in the Attorneys Oath which every lawyer in the country has to take before he is allowed to practice. In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment. WHEREFORE, respondent Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let respondents name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys immediately. Furnish the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts throughout the country with copies of this Decision. SO ORDERED.

34[34] 35[35] 36[36] 37[37]

Calub vs. Suller, 323 SCRA 556 (2000). Rayos Ombac vs. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93 (1998). Macarubbo vs. Macarubbo, supra. 107 U.S. 263, 27 Law ed., 552, 556.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. Chief Justice

REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Associate Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice

On Official Leave) MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice

On Official Leave) CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice

ADOLF S. AZCUNA Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice

(On Leave) MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

EN BANC [A.C. No. 5081. March 24, 2003] EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO, PIORILLO GUTIERREZ RUBIS and ALICIA MONTERO RUBIS, complainants, vs. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN, respondent. RESOLUTION QUISUMBING, J.: In a verified complaint38[1] filed before this Court on June 17, 1999, complainants Emiliana M. Eustaquio, Piorillo G. Rubis, and Alicia M. Rubis charged Atty. Rex C. Rimorin with grave misconduct for allegedly falsifying certain documents which enabled him to sell complainants land without their knowledge and consent. It appears from the records that on July 30, 1979, the spouses Piorillo Gutierrez Rubis and Alicia Montero Rubis were given title to a parcel of land located at Dizon Subdivision, Baguio City and covered by TCT No. T30444 of the Baguio City Registry of Deeds.

38[1]

Rollo, pp. 1-5.

On June 22, 1991, while complainants Piorillo and Alicia Rubis were both in the United States, respondent Atty. Rex C. Rimorin executed a Special Power of Attorney39[2] purportedly notarized, with the Rubis spouses present and appearing on June 22, 1991, before Notary Public E.M. Fallarme of Baguio City. 40[3] Using this spurious special power of attorney, respondent Rimorin subsequently executed on July 3, 1991, a Deed of Absolute Sale41[4] over the same property in favor of Mr. and Mrs. So Hu, of Baguio City. The execution of this deed of sale resulted in the issuance on July 5, 1991, of TCT No. 4083542[5] over the land in favor of the So Hu spouses. In November 1997, complainant Alicia Rubis came to the Philippines for a brief visit. While she was still unaware of the forgeries already perpetrated by respondent Atty. Rimorin, she was inveigled into signing a memorandum of agreement43[6] between complainants Rubis and So Hu spouses dated November 29, 1997, containing the following provisions: That the FIRST PARTY (Plaintiff Alicia Montero Rubis) is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at Dizon Subdivision, Baguio City, more particularly covered and described under TCT No. 30444 containing an area of FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN (SIC) ONE (571) SQUARE METERS more or less. That the FIRST PARTY who is now a resident of Virginia, USA, intends to sell the above described property to any interested buyer and by these presents has offered the said property for sale to the SECOND PARTY who agrees to purchase the same subject to the following terms and conditions. On February 26, 1998 the title of the So Hu spouses was cancelled and in its place TCT No. 6907144[7] was issued in the name of spouses Danilo T. de Vera and Estrellita S. Mercado, both of Baguio City. On July 21, 1999, this Court issued a resolution45[8] directing respondent Atty. Rimorin to file his comment on the instant complaint within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution. On December 28, 1999, complainants filed a manifestation with motion46[9] alleging that copies of pleadings sent to respondents known address have been returned with a notation that respondent was abroad.47[10] They also made reference to other processes and pleadings, in a civil and a criminal case, likewise filed by complainants against respondent, which were unsuccessfully served because respondent was in the United States as shown by attached return cards. Hence, complainants prayed respondent be deemed to have waived his right to comment and that, accordingly, investigation of the case be conducted even without respondents comment.48[11] In a resolution49[12] dated February 2, 2000, this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Subsequently, Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP issued an order50[13] requiring respondent Atty. Rimorin to submit his

39[2]

Id. at 7. Id. at 8. Id. at 9-10. Id. at 11. Id. at 3. Id. at 12. Id. at 13. Id. at 22-24. Id. at 28. Id. at 23. Id. at 48-49. Records, Vol. III, p. 1.

40[3]

41[4]

42[5]

43[6]

44[7]

45[8]

46[9]

47[10]

48[11]

49[12]

50[13]

duly verified answer within 15 days from receipt of the order. In another order51[14] dated October 24, 2000, Commissioner San Juan reiterated her previous order. Because of respondents failure to file his answer, the Commission resolved to declare respondent to have waived his right to file an answer and the case was deemed submitted for resolution. Hearings were conducted and on November 13, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent Atty. Rimorin guilty of grave misconduct and recommended his disbarment. Thus: The execution of the memorandum of agreement dated November 29, 1997 was made apparently to remedy the fraud committed in the execution of the Special Power of Attorney to give it semblance of legality. However, the dates of the documents is a clear give away that fraud has been committed. The Memorandum of Agreement is dated November 29, 1999 yet the Deed of Sale in favor of Spouses So Hu was executed July 3, 1991; the Special Power of Attorney was executed on June 22, 1991; the executed fraudulent Special Power of Attorney resulted to the subsequent sales, all manipulated by the respondent. These facts remain uncontroverted by the respondent. In view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent Atty. Rex C. Rimorin be DISBARRED from practice of law.52[15] On June 29, 2002, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines passed a resolution53[16] in Administrative Case No. 5081 resolving and adopting the report and recommendation54[17] of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that respondent be suspended instead of disbarred. Said resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION NO. XV-2002-227 Adm. Case No. 5081 Emiliana M. Eustaquio, et al. vs. Atty. Rex C. Rimorin RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification, and in view of respondents execution of the Memorandum of Agreement was made apparently to remedy the fraud committed in the execution of the Special Power of Attorney to give it semblance of legality, Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years and Revocation of his Notarial Commission and Perpetual Disqualification from being appointed as Notary Public.55[18] Said resolution is now before us for confirmation. Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle 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.56[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.57[20] The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral
51[14]

Id. at 2. Rollo, p. 55. Id. at 51. Id. at 52-55. Supra note 16.

52[15]

53[16]

54[17]

55[18]

Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, 9 September 1999, 314 SCRA 1, 8; Arrieta v. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932, 939 (1997).
56[19] 57[20]

See also Co v. Bernardino, 349 Phil. 16, 23 (1998).

character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the profession.58[21] A lawyer can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the Court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.59[22] The power of the Court to discipline lawyers should not, however, be exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. Neither should it be exercised at the pleasure of the Court or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility. The Courts power to discipline members of the bar should be tempered by a sound and just judicial discretion, whereby the rights and independence of the bar may be scrupulously guarded and maintained by the Court as the rights and dignity of the Court itself.60[23] In Montano v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines,61[24] we said that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. It should never be decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. In this case, despite having been furnished copies of orders requiring him to file comment or a verified answer, respondent Atty. Rimorin failed to file any comment or an answer. The dates of the documents attached in the complaint and presented during the investigation before the IBP clearly show, as reported, that fraud has been committed by him. The Memorandum of Agreement, where respondent purportedly bought the subject property from complainant Alicia Rubis, was dated November 29, 1997; yet the Deed of Sale in favor of the Spouses So Hu, signed and executed by respondent purportedly as agent of complainants, was executed earlier on July 3, 1991. In fact, at the time the Memorandum of Agreement was executed, a new TCT had already been issued to the Spouses So Hu on July 5, 1991. The Special Power of Attorney in respondents favor was allegedly executed on June 22, 1991, when complainant spouses were still in the United States and could not have possibly signed it in Baguio City, much less appear before the notary to acknowledge it. These facts remain uncontroverted by respondent. It is clear that respondents execution of the Memorandum of Agreement was made, as alleged by complainants, to remedy the fraud committed in the execution of the Special Power of Attorney and to give it semblance of legality. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document, taking advantage thereof and profiting thereby, is presumed the forger or the material author of the falsification.62[25] This presumption has not been rebutted by respondent. Respondents deceitful conduct makes him less than worthy of his continued practice of law. A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.63[26] Commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.64[27] Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but the duty of the Court which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar to withdraw the privilege.65[28]

Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. 1474, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 556, 560; Tapucar v. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, 74 (1998); Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7, 15 (1998).
58[21] 59[22]

Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, 18 September 1992, 214 SCRA 1, 13. In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 602. A.C. No. 4215, 21 May 2001, 358 SCRA 1, 9. See Maliwat v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 732, 750 (1996). Tapucar v. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, 74 (1998). Vda. de Mijares v. Villaluz, 340 Phil. 164, 171 (1997).

60[23]

61[24]

62[25]

63[26]

64[27]

In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 601-602, In re Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24 (1920), In re Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 549 (1918).
65[28]

On the basis of the records before us, we have no hesitance in confirming the resolution passed by the IBP Board of Governors suspending respondent from the practice of law and revoking his notarial commission as well as disqualifying him perpetually from being appointed as notary public. WHEREFORE, Atty. Rex C. Rimorin is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years. His commission as Notary Public is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from appointment as Notary Public. Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED to the IBP, the OCA, and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal records of respondent and for circulation to all courts in the Philippines. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.