Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abad
A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983
By. CDDrio
Facts:
Charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine Trial Lawyers
Association, Inc., of practicing law without having been previously admitted to the
Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo S. Abad could not deny and had to admit the practice. He failed
to take the lawyers oath and failed to sign his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
1. He paid his dues on July 23, 1979
2. He was to take the oath on July 26, 1979
3. And on July 26, 1979, he appeared before the SC and the Clerk of Court asked
him to sign the Lawyers Oath and waited for his turn to do the Oath. And while
waiting for his turn to take the oath he was called by the Honorable Chief Justice
Fernando to discuss the complaint lodged against by a certain Jorge Uy. He was
instructed by the CJ to prepare an Reply to the Reply of the Complainant on the
basis of his Answer to his Complaint.
4. July 31, 1979, he filed his Reply with Prayer that the court determine his fitness
to be a member of the bar.
5. May 10 1980, without action to his Prayer he received an invitation from IBP on
the upcoming Gen Assembly and for the settlement of his accounts.
6. He paid his dues thereafter and even received invitation to vote for IBP officers.
7. Something in 1981, Jorge Uy, the complainant died. He immediately informed
the Court on this fact and Praying that he be allowed to take the oath.
8. No action was taken by SC. He continued to be assessed of his dues by IBP QC
and even received Certificate of Member of Good Standing.
ISSUE:
WON a lawyer be admitted to the practice failing to do all other essential requisites
such as;
1. Taking the Oath 2. And Signing his name in the Attorneys Roll?
RULING:
NO. He was declared guilty of contempt of court and was fined Php 500.
ISSUE:
WON disbarment proceeding on a lawyer convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude constitute double jeopardy.
RULING:
NO.
The disbarment of an attorney does not partake of a criminal proceeding. Rather, it is
intended "to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court"
(In re Montagne and Dominguez, 3 Phil. 588), and its purpose is "to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be
competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence".
The crime of which respondent was convicted is falsification of public document, which is
indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary to justice, honesty and good morals.
Hence, such crime involves moral turpitude. Indeed, it is well-settled that "embezzlement,
forgery, robbery, and swindling are crimes which denote moral turpitude and, as a general
rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude
August 1,
x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these
[administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal
law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different
capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case.XXX