The Court Has Consistently Pronounced That Disbarment Is The Appropriate Penalty For Conviction By Final Judgment For A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude... - The Lawyer's Post

See - The Court Has Consistently Pronounced That Disbarment Is The Appropriate Penalty For Conviction By Final Judgment For A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude... - The Lawyer's Post

"x x x.

To recapitulate, this Court upheld the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the copy of Abastillas’ letter which Atty. Pactolin attached to his complaint was spurious. Given the clear absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding his possession and use of the falsified Abastillas’ letter, this Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not err in concluding that it was Atty. Pactolin who falsified the letter. This Court relied on the settled rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.⁠4 

This Court’s decision in said falsification case had long become final and executory. In In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo⁠5, the Court held that in disbarment cases, it is no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction which has become final. The review of the conviction no longer rests upon this Court.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.

This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude.⁠6 Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.⁠7 

Having said that, what penalty should be imposed then on Atty. Pactolin?

As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed 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 a member of the bar.⁠8 Yet this Court has also consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.⁠9 

Here, Atty. Pactolin’s disbarment is warranted. The Sandiganbayan has confirmed that although his culpability for falsification has been indubitably established, he has not yet served his sentence. His conduct only exacerbates his offense and shows that he falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.⁠10 

This Court once again reminds all lawyers that they, of all classes and professions, are most sacredly bound to uphold the law.⁠11 The privilege to practice law is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. As such, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.⁠12 

x x x."

EN BANC, A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012, RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455 UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN, RESPONDENT.