Doctrine:
The very point of having a
justice system based on the rule of law is to avoid situations such as what
happened in this case; every man is presumed innocent and deserves a day in
court.
Thus, the Court cannot
countenance respondent's pugilistic behavior and brand of vigilante
"justice," as it is this Court's duty to uphold the rule of law and
not the rule of men. Respondent, being a lawyer and an officer of the court,
should know this basic principle and should have acted accordingly.
Facts:
On February 12, 2014, Roger was
at the compound of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) XI, Bangkal,
Davao City, to accompany his brother Ruben B. Dap-og (Ruben) to attend a
hearing/conference in a case. Protestants therein were represented by Atty.
Mendez while Atty. Lilibeth O. Ladaga (Atty. Ladaga) was Gemma's counsel.
Roger then shook hands with Atty.
Mendez. However, he was surprised when Atty. Mendez suddenly called him a
demon. He then demanded an explanation from Atty. Mendez. Instead of answering,
Atty. Mendez, who was sitting then, stood up from where he was seated and tried
to grab Roger from across the table. Roger managed to move back but Atty.
Mendez still managed to scratch his neck. Atty. Mendez then slapped Roger's
left cheek.
Roger tried to move away but
respondent, together with Rodolfo and several others, pursued him and managed
to land some punches on him. Roger's companion, Jimmy Dela Peña (Jimmy)
eventually succeeded in disengaging Roger from Atty. Mendez but not before the
latter hit Roger's right shoulder.8 During the commotion, the group of Atty.
Mendez was hurling invectives and accusations at Roger.
Roger suffered bruises for
several days and his right shoulder was fractured. He also felt humiliated and
psychologically tormented after the incident. He averred that he is now
constantly in fear and anxious for his personal safety due to the death threats
hurled at him by respondent's group.
Consequently, Roger filed a
complaint for Less Serious Physical Injuries, Grave Slander and Grave Threat
against Atty. Mendez before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Davao City.
Atty. Mendez denied Roger's
allegedly malicious accusations against him.
On May 7, 2014, Roger filed the
instant complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP
Board of Governors (BOG), in Resolution, recommended penalty of the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law to one (1) year.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Mendez
should be held administratively liable based on the allegations on the
Complaint.
Ruling:
YES. The Court affirms the findings of
the IBP and adopt the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for one (1) year.
Instead of procuring evidence to
rebut Roger's evidence, such as the alleged Closed Circuit Television footage
mentioned by respondent but never submitted, the latter merely enumerated his
supposed achievements that he himself admitted being irrelevant to the instant
case. We must remind respondent that this Court applies the law based on the
ultimate facts culled from the evidence presented by both parties, regardless of
the parties' perceived achievements. In fact, a stricter and more rigid
standard of conduct must be observed by lawyers, such as respondent, given that
the legal profession is innately imbued with the duty to administer justice.
The case of Soriano v. Dizon
reiterates the purpose of disbarment proceedings in relation to the protection
of administration of justice, to wit:
The purpose of a proceeding for
disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those
who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable —
lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. x x x.
Moreover, we have ruled that
"the Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any misconduct showing any
fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor,
whether in his profession or private life because good character is an
essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the
continuance of such privilege."
As applied in this case, Atty.
Mendez clearly did not meet the lofty standards reposed on lawyers. There is no
excuse for respondent's unlawful and dishonorable behavior. Even assuming for
the sake of argument that respondent's allegations against Roger were true,
that the latter swindled the former's clients, no person should take the law
into his own hands. In this regard, this Court must remind respondent that
while he can represent his clients with zeal, he must do so within the bounds
of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment