8. ANÁLISIS DE LA OBRA
8.2. Deconstrucción y empoderamiento a partir de raza, género y clase
conferences and to submit their pre-trial briefs. Furthermore, she charged Maliwanag with gross ignorance of the law for allegedly issuing a patently unjust order.
All the administrative cases were dismissed for lack of merit. May Atty. Balaoing be disbarred? Why?
Yes. It is shown from the facts that Balaoing has a penchant for filing administrative charges against judges in whose sala he has pending cases, whenever the latter render decisions or issue orders adverse to him and/or his client. In Bagamasbad vs. Judge De Guzman (AM No. RTC-88, Nov. 7, 1989), the Supreme Court admonished lawyers to be more prudent in filing administrative charges against members of the judiciary. It is true that "the lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. No fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him from the full charge of his duty. But it is stead fastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it demand from him or any client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client. Balaoing went out of bounds when he filed his baseless and frivolous administrative complaints against Judges Calderon and Maliwanag with no other plain and clear purpose than to harass judges, thus, exact vengeance on them for rendering adverse judgments against him and his client. (Balaoing vs. Caideron, AM No. RTJ-90-530; Balaoing vs. Maliwanag, AM No. RTJ-676, April 27, 1993).
Q - The respondent was charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from a medical chart which was material evidence in a damage suit filed by his clients against some doctors and St. Luke's
Hospital. Can he be disbarred? Why?
- Yes. By stealing the said pages of the medical chart, he violated
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Codes of Professional Responsibility as well as Canon 7 which provided:
"Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct."
"Canon 7. - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar."
A lawyer is an officer of the courts, he is "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice". (People ex reI Karlin vs. Culkin 60 A.L.R. 851, 855). An incorrigible practitioner of "dirty tricks," like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of "an instrument to advance the ends of
________________________________________________________________
justice."The importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession has been stressed by the Court repeatedly.
"x x x. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as wel,! as of honesty an,d fair dealing. Generally speakiTJg, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profess~on by faithfully perform,ing his d,uties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.c. No. 3248, September 18, 1992).
"x x x. The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross mis- conduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of professional duties as member of the bar, which puts his moral character in serious doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. (Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662, 676)
x x x public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualification and who are sworn to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients and the public." (Phil Association of Free Labor Unions [PAFLU] vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company, 42 SCRA 302, 305).
By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the Bar.
"Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanoror unworthy to continue as an officer of'the court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoythe privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of an attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring reproach onthe legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public." (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr. A.C. No. 3248, September 16, 1992; Fernandez vs.
________________________________________________________________
Grecia, June 17, 1993).
Q - A sworn complaint was filed with the Supreme Court on 24 December 1981, with the complainant Dorothy B. Terre, charging respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar with "grossly immoral conduct," consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained subsisting.
His defense was that his first marriage with complainant is void, hence, his marriage with his second wife is valid. There is, therefore, no immoral conduct. Is his defense valid? Why?
.- No. When the second marriage was entered into, re-
spondent's prior marriage with the complainant was subsisting, no judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration as to nullity of the same. That he was in good faith was not accepted since his pretended defense was the same thing which he used to inveigle complainant into believing that her prior marriage was void. The moral character of respondent was deeply flawed, hence, his acts eloquently displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a member of the Bar, but likewise his inadequacy to uphold the purpose and responsibility of his gender because marriage is a basic social institution. (Arroyo vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 96602 and 96715, Nov. 19, 1991).
In Pomperada vs. Jochico, 133 SCRA 309 (1984), it was said, in rejecting a petition to be allowed to take the oath as a member of the Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys:
"It is evident that respondent fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the egal profession. Whether the marriage was a joke as respondent claims, or a trick played on her as claimed by complainant, it does not speak well of respondent's moral values. Respondent had made a mockery of marriage, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. (Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 [89J; Laguitan vs. Tinio, 179 SCRA 837).
In Bolivar vs. Simbol, 16 SCRA 623, the Court found the respondent guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" because he made "a dupe of complainant living on her bounty and allowing her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities while dangling before her the mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from complainant. x x x." The Court held such acts "indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the Bar."