Case: Barrios v Martinez
Case No. A.C. No. 4585 | Date: November 12, 2004 | Ponente: Per curiam
TOPIC: CPR Rule 1.01 Duty not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
DIGESTED BY: Mcleone C. Fontelo
DOCTRINE:
- 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.
- Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, demanding a high degree of good moral
character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement
for the practice of law.
- Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and
to their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may
disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor — or to be unworthy to
continue as officers of the Court.
- Issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account
indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of
personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence.
- Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so
FACTS:
- March 20, 1996, Complainant submitted our Resolution of a previous case, declaring Atty.
Francisco Martinez convicted by final judgment in Criminal Case No. 6608 of a crime involving
moral turpitude by Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City.
- February 3, 1999, or almost three years later, Court declared respondent Martinez guilty of
Contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 3[b] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered his
imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid resolutions.
- A certain Robert Visbal submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court that respondent
Martinez has another estafa case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case
involving the victims of the Doña Paz tragedy in 1987, where he claimed an “absurd and totally
ridiculous that for a simple legal service”. Martinez issued a check to the plaintiff for P90,000 as
compensation for the deaths of his wife and two daughters, Atty. Martinez asked plaintiff to
endorse said check. When plaintiff asked for his money, he was only able to recover a total of
P30,000. Atty. Martinez claimed the remaining P60,000 as his attorney’s fees.
- 16 June 1999, Court referred the present case (the report of Mr. Visbal) to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation, which ruled that he be
disbarred and his name stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys immediately.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the said crime is one involving moral turpitude
RULING:
- Yes. The Court undoubtedly declares the crime of Atty. Francisco Martinez, violating BP Blg. 22
or estafa, consistent of moral turpitude.
The Court finds disbarment to be the appropriate penalty.
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 bands of society, argues cowardice to his
position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements
of the body politic.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is hereby DISBARRED and his name is
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
