Michael P. Barrios v. Atty. Francisco P.
Martinez
AC No. 4585, 12 November 2004
Facts:
Petitioner filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Francisco Martinez for
having been convicted by final judgment in the case of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Martinez was found guilty of violating of BP Blg. 22.
After the filing of the complaint, the respondent was required by the court to
comment on said petition within 10 days from notice. Respondent did not
comply despite the multiple opportunities the court afforded him. Eventually,
the court declared respondent Martinez guilty of Contempt.
In 1999, th NBI reported that respondent was arrested in Tacloban City, but
was subsequently released after having shown proof of compliance with the
resolutions of the court ordering him to file his comment under pain of
imprisonment. He stated he failed to respond to the earlier order because of
having undergone medical treatment, the complainant had passed away, and
that the said administrative complaint is an offshot of a civil case which was
decided in petitioner’s favor.
In 1997, a certain Visbal alleged that respondent Martinez also sttod charged
in another estafa case, as well as a civil case involving the victims of the
Dona Paz tragedy in 1987. The court in that case rendered a decision against
him.
As to the facts of the second civil case, it appears that respondent offered his
legal services to the victims of the Dona Paz tragedy for free. However, when
the plaintiff in the said civil case was issued a check for P90,000 by Sulpicio
Lines representing compensation for the deaths of his wife and two
daughters, respondent asked the plaintiff in that case to endorse said check,
which was then deposited in the account of respondent’s wifi. When the
plaintiff asked for his money, he was only able to recover a total of P30,000.
Respopndent claimed the remaining P60,000 as his attorney’s fees. Holding
that it was “absurd and totally ridiculous that for a simple legal service, he
would collected 2/3 of the money claim, the trial court ordered respondent to
pay the plaintiff therein the amount of P60,000 with interest.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner reiterated respondent’s misconducts,
and stated that respondent had a propensity to disregard or ignore orders of
the Honorable Supreme Court for which he was fined twice, arrested and
imprisoned, that he used a lot of dilatory tactics in the civil case with the
Dona Paz tragedy victims, and the fact that he was convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude for violating BP 22, all of which reflects an utter lack
of good moral character in respondent. As a result, the IBP IC recommended
that respondent be disbarred and his name stricken out of the Roll of
Attorneys immediately.
Issue:
1. Is the violation of BP 22 considered a crime involving moral turpitude
2. Whether the respondent may be disbarred for his misconduct
Ruling:
1. Yes, the violation of BP 22 considered a crime involving moral turpitude.
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 fellow men, 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.
In People of the Philippines v. Atty. Fe Tuanda, where the erring lawyer was
indefinitely suspended for having been convicted of three counts of violation
of BP 22, the Court held that conviction by final judgment of violating of BP
22 involves moral turpitude. In that case, the Court stated that a conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude might not relate to the exercise of the
profession of a lawyer, however, it certainly relates to and affects the good
moral character of a person convicted of such offense.
In Villaber v. COMELEC, the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of
BP 22 and held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the
time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit
with, the drawee bank for the check in full upon its presentment is a
manifestation of moral turpitude.
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient
funds to cover the same constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral
conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers.
2. Yes, respondent may be disbarred for his misconduct despite it being a
misconduct in his private capacity.
While the general rule is that lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and
the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for his
misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity, where, however, the
misconduct outside of the lawyer’s professional dealings is so gross a
character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be
justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney.
The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a
deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. The
practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment 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.
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action
where the complainant is plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministrations of persons unfit to practice them.
Nor is the Court inclined to look with favor upon respondent’s plea that if
“given another chance to have his cay in court and to adduce
evidence, the result/outcome would be entirely different from that
arrived at.” the Court noted with displeasure the inordinate length of
time respondent took in responding to out requirement to submit his
Comment on the original petition to disbar him. These acts constitute a
willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court, which under Sec.
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself a cause sufficient for
suspension or disbarment.
