EN BANC a second resolution[5] requiring him to

show cause why no disciplinary action

[ A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004 ]
should be imposed on him for failure to
MICHAEL P. BARRIOS, comply with our earlier Resolution, and to
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. submit said Comment. On 07 July 1997,
FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ, we imposed a fine of P1,000 for
RESPONDENT. respondent’s failure to file said Comment
and required him to comply with our
DECISION previous resolution within ten days.[6] On
PER CURIAM: 27 April 1998, we fined respondent an
This is a verified petition[1] for disbarment additional P2,000 and required him to
filed against Atty. Francisco Martinez for comply with the resolution requiring his
having been convicted by final judgment comment within ten days under pain of
in Criminal Case No. 6608 of a crime imprisonment and arrest for a period of
involving moral turpitude by Branch 8 of five (5) days or until his
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of [7]
compliance. Finally, on 03 February
Tacloban City.[2] 1999, or almost three years later, we
declared respondent Martinez guilty of
The dispositive portion of the same Contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 3[b] of the
states: 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the ordered his imprisonment until he
accused Francisco Martinez guilty complied with the aforesaid resolutions.[8]
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime for
(sic) violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 On 05 April 1999, the National Bureau of
charged in the Information. He is Investigation reported[9] that respondent
imposed a penalty of one (1) year was arrested in Tacloban City on 26
imprisonment and fine double the March 1999, but was subsequently
amount of the check which is EIGHT released after having shown proof of
THOUSAND (8,000.00) PESOS, plus compliance with the resolutions of 17
payment of the tax pursuant to Section February 1997 and 27 April 1998 by
205 of the Internal Revenue Code and remitting the amount of P2,000 and
costs against the accused.[3] submitting his long overdue Comment.
Complainant further submitted our
Resolution dated 13 March 1996 and the In the said Comment[10] dated 16 March
Entry of Judgment from this Court dated 1999, respondent stated that:
20 March 1996. 1. He failed to respond to our Resolution
dated 17 February 1997 as he was at
On 03 July 1996, we that time undergoing medical
[4]
required respondent to comment on treatment at Camp Ruperto Kangleon
said petition within ten (10) days from in Palo, Leyte;
notice. On 17 February 1997, we issued
2. Complainant Michael Barrios passed asked for his money, he was only able to
away sometime in June 1997; and recover a total of P30,000. Atty. Martinez
claimed the remaining P60,000 as his
3. Said administrative complaint is an attorney’s fees. Holding that it was
offshoot of a civil case which was “absurd and totally ridiculous that for a
decided in respondent’s favor (as simple legal service … he would collect
plaintiff in the said case). Respondent 2/3 of the money claim,” the trial court
avers that as a result of his moving for ordered Atty. Martinez to pay the plaintiff
the execution of judgment in his favor therein the amount of P60,000 with
and the eviction of the family of herein interest, P5,000 for moral and exemplary
complainant Michael Barrios, the latter damages, and the costs of the suit.
filed the present administrative case.
In the meantime, on 11 September 1997, Said trial court also made particular
a certain Robert Visbal of the Provincial mention of Martinez’s dilatory tactics
Prosecution Office of Tacloban City during the trial, citing fourteen (14)
submitted a letter[11] to the First Division specific instances thereof. Martinez’s
Clerk of Court alleging that respondent appeal from the above judgment was
Martinez also stood charged in dismissed by the Court of Appeals for his
another estafa case before the Regional failure to file his brief, despite having
Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 9, as been granted three thirty (30)-day
well as a civil case involving the victims extensions to do so.[13]
of the Doña Paz tragedy in 1987, for
which the Regional Trial Court of Basey, On 16 June 1999, we referred[14] the
Samar, Branch 30 rendered a decision present case to the Integrated Bar of the
against him, his appeal thereto having Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report,
been dismissed by the Court of Appeals. and recommendation.

In the said Decision of Branch 30 of the The report[15] of IBP Investigating

Regional Trial Court of Basey, Commissioner Winston D. Abuyuan
Samar,[12] it appears that herein stated in part that:
respondent Atty. Martinez offered his Several dates for the hearing of the case
legal services to the victims of the Doña were scheduled but none of the parties
Paz tragedy for free. However, when the appeared before the Commission, until
plaintiff in the said civil case was issued finally it was considered submitted for
a check for P90,000 by Sulpicio Lines resolution last 27 June 2002. On the
representing compensation for the same date respondent filed a motion for
deaths of his wife and two the dismissal of the case on the ground
daughters, Atty. Martinez asked plaintiff that the complainant died sometime in
to endorse said check, which was then June 1997 and that dismissal is
deposited in the account of Dr. Martinez, warranted because “the case filed by him
Atty. Martinez’s wife. When plaintiff
does not survive due to his demise; as a be disbarred and his name stricken out
matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his from the Roll of Attorneys immediately.
death.” On 27 September 2003, the IBP Board of
Governors passed a
We disagree with respondent’s [16]
Resolution adopting and approving
contention. the report and recommendation of its
Investigating Commissioner.
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court, the Honorable On 03 December 2003, respondent
Supreme Court or the IBP may motu Martinez filed a Motion for
proprio initiate the proceedings when Reconsideration and/or
they perceive acts of lawyers which [17]
Reinvestigation, in the instant case
deserve sanctions or when their attention alleging that:
is called by any one and a probable 1. The Report and Recommendation of
cause exists that an act has been the IBP Investigating Commissioner is
perpetrated by a lawyer which requires tantamount to a deprivation of
disciplinary sanctions. property without due process of law,
although admittedly the practice of law
As earlier cited, respondent lawyer’s is a privilege;
propensity to disregard or ignore orders
of the Honorable Supreme Court for 2. If respondent is given another chance
which he was fined twice, arrested and to have his day in court and allowed to
imprisoned reflects an utter lack of good adduce evidence, the result/outcome
moral character. would be entirely different from that
arrived at by the Investigating
Respondent’s conviction of a crime Commissioner; and
involving moral turpitude (estafa and/or
3. Respondent is now 71 years of age,
violation of BP Blg. 22) clearly shows his
and has served the judiciary in various
unfitness to protect the administration of
capacities (from acting city judge to
justice and therefore justifies the
Municipal Judges League Leyte
imposition of sanctions against him (see
Chapter President) for almost 17
In re: Abesamis, 102 Phil. 1182; In
years prior to resuming his law
re: Jaramillo, 101 Phil. 323; In
practice.
re: Vinzon, 19 SCRA 815; Medina vs.
On 14 January 2004, we
Bautista, 12 SCRA 1, People vs. Tuanda, [18]
required complainant to file a
Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 Jan. 1990).
comment within ten days. On 16
February 2004, we received a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it
Manifestation and Motion[19] from
is respectfully recommended that
complainant’s daughter, Diane Francis
respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez
Barrios Latoja, alleging that they had not
been furnished with a copy of disobedience of any lawful order of a
respondent’s Motion, notwithstanding the superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
fact that respondent ostensibly lives next appearing as an attorney for a party to a
door to complainant’s family. Required case without authority to do so.
to Comment on 17 May 2004,
respondent has until now failed to do so. In the present case, respondent has
been found guilty and convicted by final
The records show that respondent, judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for
indeed, failed to furnish a copy of said issuing a worthless check in the amount
Motion to herein complainant. The of P8,000. The issue with which we are
records also show that respondent was now concerned is whether or not the said
given several opportunities to present crime is one involving moral turpitude. [22]
evidence by this Court[20] as well as by
the IBP.[21] Indeed, he only has himself to Moral turpitude “includes everything
blame, for he has failed to present his which is done contrary to justice,
case despite several occasions to do honesty, modesty, or good morals.”[23] It
so. It is now too late in the day for involves “an act of baseness, vileness, or
respondent to ask this court to receive his depravity in the private duties which a
evidence. man owes his fellow men, or to society in
general, contrary to the accepted and
This court, moreover, is unwilling to customary rule of right and duty between
exercise the same patience that it did man and woman, or conduct contrary to
when it waited for his comment on the justice, honesty, modesty, or good
original petition. At any rate, after a morals.”[24]
careful consideration of the records of the
instant case, we find the evidence on In People of the Philippines v. Atty. Fe
record sufficient to support the IBP’s Tuanda,[25] where the erring lawyer was
findings. indefinitely suspended for having been
convicted of three counts of violation of
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of B.P. Blg. 22, we held that conviction by
Court, a member of the Bar may be final judgment of violation of B.P. Blg. 22
disbarred or suspended from his office as involves moral turpitude and stated:
attorney by the Supreme Court for any We should add that the crimes of which
deceit, malpractice, or other gross respondent was convicted also import
misconduct in such office, grossly deceit and violation of her attorney's oath
immoral conduct, or by reason of his and the Code of Professional
conviction of a crime involving moral Responsibility under both of which she
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath was bound to "obey the laws of the
which he is required to take before land." Conviction of a crime involving
admission to practice, or for a willful moral turpitude might not (as in the
instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (A) conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22,
does not) relate to the exercise of the “imports deceit” and “certainly relates to
profession of a lawyer; however, and affects the good moral character of a
it certainly relates to and affects the good person.” [Indeed] the effects of the
moral character of a person convicted of issuance of a worthless check, as we
such offense…[26] (emphasis supplied) held in the landmark case of Lozano v.
Over ten years later, we reiterated the Martinez, through Justice Pedro L. Yap,
above ruling in Villaber v. Commission on “transcends the private interests of the
Elections[27] and disqualified a parties directly involved in the transaction
congressional candidate for having been and touches the interests of the
sentenced by final judgment for three community at large. The mischief it
counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in creates is not only a wrong to the payee
accordance with Sec. 12 of the Omnibus or holder, but also an injury to the public”
Election Code, which states: since the circulation of valueless
SEC. 12. Disqualifications. — Any commercial papers “can very well pollute
person who has been declared by the channels of trade and commerce,
competent authority insane or injure the banking system and eventually
incompetent, or has been sentenced by hurt the welfare of society and the public
final judgment for subversion, interest.” Thus, paraphrasing Black's
insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense definition, a drawer who issues an
for which he has been sentenced to a unfunded check deliberately reneges on
penalty of more than eighteen months, or his private duties he owes his fellow men
for a crime involving moral turpitude, or society in a manner contrary to
shall be disqualified to be a candidate accepted and customary rule of right and
and to hold any office, unless he has duty, justice, honesty or good
[28]
morals. (emphasis supplied)
been given plenary pardon or granted
amnesty. (emphasis supplied) In the recent case of Barrientos v.
Enumerating the elements of that crime, Libiran-Meteoro,[29] we stated that:
we held that the act of a person in issuing (T)he issuance of checks which were
a check knowing at the time of the later dishonored for having been drawn
issuance that he or she does not have against a closed account indicates a
sufficient funds in, or credit with, the lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and
drawee bank for the check in full upon its confidence reposed on her. It shows a
presentment, is a manifestation of moral lack of personal honesty and good moral
turpitude. Notwithstanding therein character as to render her unworthy of
petitioner’s averment that he was not a public confidence. [Cuizon v. Macalino,
lawyer, we nevertheless applied our A.C. No. 4334, 07 July 2004] The
ruling in People v. Tuanda, to the effect issuance of a series of worthless checks
that also shows the remorseless attitude of
respondent, unmindful to the deleterious
effects of such act to the public interest and reliable; men in whom courts and
and public order. [Lao v. Medel, 405 clients may repose confidence.”[31] “A
SCRA 227] It also manifests a lawyer’s proceeding for suspension or disbarment
low regard for her commitment to the is not in any sense a civil action where
oath she has taken when she joined her the complainant is plaintiff and the
peers, seriously and irreparably respondent lawyer is a
tarnishing the image of the profession defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
she should hold in high esteem. involve no private interest and afford no
[Sanchez v. Somoso, A.C. No. 6061, 03 redress for private grievance. They are
October 2003] undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in public welfare, and for the purpose of
issuing a check without sufficient funds to preserving courts of justice from the
cover the same constitutes such willful official ministrations of persons unfit to
dishonesty and immoral conduct as to practice them.”[32] “Verily, lawyers must
undermine the public confidence in law at all times faithfully perform their duties
and lawyers. And while “the general rule to society, to the bar, to the courts and to
is that a lawyer may not be suspended or their clients. Their conduct must always
disbarred, and the court may not reflect the values and norms of the legal
ordinarily assume jurisdiction to profession as embodied in the Code of
discipline him for misconduct in his non- Professional Responsibility. On these
professional or private capacity, where, considerations, the Court may disbar or
however, the misconduct outside of the suspend lawyers for any professional or
lawyer's professional dealings is so gross private misconduct showing them to be
a character as to show him morally unfit wanting in moral character, honesty,
for the office and unworthy of the probity and good demeanor — or to be
privilege which his licenses and the law unworthy to continue as officers of the
confer on him, the court may be justified Court.”[33]
in suspending or removing him from the
office of attorney.”[30] Nor are we inclined to look with favor
upon respondent’s plea that if “given
The argument of respondent that to another chance to have his day in court
disbar him now is tantamount to a and to adduce evidence, the
deprivation of property without due result/outcome would be entirely different
process of law is also untenable. As from that arrived at.” We note with
respondent himself admits, the practice displeasure the inordinate length of time
of law is a privilege. The purpose of a respondent took in responding to our
proceeding for disbarment is “to protect requirement to submit his Comment on
the administration of justice by requiring the original petition to disbar him. These
that those who exercise this important acts constitute a willful disobedience of
function shall be competent, honorable the lawful orders of this Court, which
under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of 2002. Respondent, therefore,
Court is in itself a cause sufficient for squandered away seven years to “have
suspension or disbarment. Thus, from his day in court and adduce evidence” in
the time we issued our first Resolution on his behalf, which inaction also unduly
03 July 1996 requiring him to submit his delayed the court’s prompt disposition of
Comment, until 16 March 1999, when he this petition.
submitted said Comment to secure his
release from arrest, almost three years In Pajares v. Abad Santos,[35] we
had elapsed. reminded attorneys that “there must be
more faithful adherence to Rule 7,
It is revealing that despite the Section 5 of the Rules of Court [now Rule
unwarranted length of time it took 7, Section 3] which provides that the
respondent to comply, his Comment signature of an attorney constitutes a
consists of all of two pages, a copy of certificate by him that he has read the
which, it appears, he neglected to furnish pleading and that to the best of his
complainant.[34] And while he claims to knowledge, information and belief, there
have been confined while undergoing is good ground to support it; and that it is
medical treatment at the time our not interposed for delay, and expressly
Resolution of 17 February 1997 was admonishes that for a willful violation of
issued, he merely reserved the this rule an attorney may be subjected to
submission of a certification to that disciplinary action.[36] It is noteworthy that
effect. Nor, indeed, was he able to offer in the past, the Court has disciplined
any explanation for his failure to submit lawyers and judges for willful disregard of
his Comment from the time we issued our its orders to file comments or appellant’s
first Resolution of 03 July 1996 until 16 briefs, as a penalty for disobedience
March 1999. In fact, said Comment thereof. [37]
alleged, merely, that the complainant,
Michael Barrios, passed away sometime For the same reasons, we are disinclined
in June 1997, and imputed upon the latter to take respondent’s old age and the fact
unsupported ill-motives for instituting the that he served in the judiciary in various
said Petition against him, which capacities in his favor. If at all, we hold
argument has already been resolved respondent to a higher standard for it, for
squarely in the abovementioned IBP a judge should be the embodiment of
report. competence, integrity, and
[38]
independence, and his conduct should
Moreover, the IBP report cited the failure be above reproach.[39] The fact that
of both parties to appear before the respondent has chosen to engage in
Commission as the main reason for the private practice does not mean he is now
long delay, until the same was finally free to conduct himself in less honorable
submitted for Resolution on 27 June – or indeed in a less than honorable –
manner. similar to this case in that both
respondents were convicted for violation
We stress that membership in the legal of B.P. Blg. 22 which we have held to be
profession is a privilege,[40] demanding a such a crime, we affirmed the order of
high degree of good moral character, not suspension from the practice of law
only as a condition precedent to imposed by the Court of Appeals, until
admission, but also as a continuing further orders.
requirement for the practice of
law.[41] Sadly, herein respondent falls However, in a long line of cases, some of
short of the exacting standards expected which were decided after Tuanda, we
of him as a vanguard of the legal have held disbarment to be the
profession. appropriate penalty for conviction by final
judgment for a crime involving moral
The IBP Board of Governors turpitude. Thus:
recommended that respondent be 1. In In The Matter of Disbarment
disbarred from the practice of law. We Proceedings v. Narciso N.
[43]
Jaramillo, we disbarred a lawyer
agree.
convicted of estafa without discussing
We come now to the matter of the penalty the circumstances behind his
imposable in this case. In Co v. conviction. We held that:
Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we upheld There is no question that the crime
the imposition of one year’s suspension of estafa involves moral turpitude. The
for non-payment of debt and issuance of review of respondent's conviction no
worthless checks, or a suspension of six longer rests upon us. The judgment
months upon partial payment of the not only has become final but has
obligation.[42] However, in these cases, been executed. No elaborate
for various reasons, none of the argument is necessary to hold the
issuances resulted in a conviction by the respondent unworthy of the privilege
erring lawyers for either estafa or B.P. bestowed on him as a member of the
Blg. 22. Thus, we held therein that bar. Suffice it to say that, by his
the issuance of worthless checks conviction, the respondent has proved
constitutes gross misconduct, for which a himself unfit to protect the
lawyer may be sanctioned with administration of justice. [44]

suspension from the practice of law. 2. In In Re: Dalmacio De Los

[45]
Angeles, a lawyer was convicted of
In the instant case, however, herein the crime of attempted bribery in a
respondent has been found final decision rendered by the Court of
guilty and stands convicted by final Appeals. “And since bribery is
judgment of a crime involving moral admittedly a felony involving moral
turpitude. In People v. Tuanda, which is turpitude (7 C.J.S., p. 736; 5 Am. Jur.
 p. 428), this Court, much as it be no question that the term “moral
sympathizes with the plight of turpitude” includes everything which is
respondent, is constrained to decree done contrary to justice, honesty, or
his disbarment as ordained by Section good morals. In essence and in all
25 of Rule 127.”[46] respects, estafa, no doubt, is a crime
involving moral turpitude because the
3. In Ledesma De Jesus-Paras v. act is unquestionably against justice,
Quinciano Vailoces,[47] the erring honesty and good morals (In re
lawyer acknowledged the execution of Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. 263, July
a document purporting to be a last will 31, 1962; Bouvier's Law Dictionary; In
and testament, which later turned out re Basa, 41 Phil. 275-76). As
to be a forgery. He was found guilty respondent's guilt cannot now be
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime questioned, his disbarment is
of falsification of public document, inevitable. (emphasis supplied) [50]
which the Court held to be a crime 6. In In Re: Attorney Jose
involving moral turpitude, said act [51]
Avanceña, the conditional pardon
being contrary to justice, honesty and extended to the erring lawyer by the
good morals, and was subsequently Chief Executive also failed to relieve
disbarred. him of the penalty of disbarment
imposed by this court.
4. In In Re: Disbarment Proceedings
Against Atty. Diosdado Q. 7. In In Re Disbarment of Rodolfo
[48]
Gutierrez, Atty. Gutierrez was Pajo,[52] a lawyer was charged and
convicted for murder. After serving a found guilty of the crime of falsification
portion of the sentence, he was of public document for having
granted a conditional pardon by the prepared and notarized a deed of sale
President. Holding that the pardon of a parcel of land knowing that the
was not absolute and thus did not supposed affiant was an impostor and
reach the offense itself but merely that the vendor had been dead for
remitted the unexecuted portion of his almost eight years. We ruled that
term, the court nevertheless disbarred disbarment follows as a consequence
him. of a lawyer's conviction by final
judgment of a crime involving moral
5. In In Re: Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon,[49] Atty.
turpitude, and since the crime of
Vinzon was convicted of the crime
falsification of public document
of estafa for misappropriating the
involves moral turpitude, we ordered
amount of P7,000.00, and was
respondent’s name stricken off the roll
subsequently disbarred. We held
of attorneys.
thus:
Upon the other hand, and dealing now 8. In Adelina T. Villanueva v. Atty.
with the merits of the case, there can Teresita Sta. Ana,[53] we upheld the
 recommendation of the IBP Board of Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Governors to disbar a lawyer who had Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
been convicted of estafa through Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr.,
falsification of public documents, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia,
because she was “totally unfit to be a JJ., concur.
member of the legal profession.”[54] Puno, J., on official leave.
Corona, and Tinga, JJ., on leave.
9. In Victoriano P. Resurreccion v. Atty.
Ciriaco C. Sayson,[55] a lawyer was
disbarred for having been convicted
of estafa by final judgment for
misappropriating the funds of his
client.
In this case as well, we find 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 recreancy to his position
and office and sets a pernicious example
to the insubordinate and dangerous
elements of the body politic.”[56]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.

Francisco P. Martinez is hereby
DISBARRED and his name is
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be
entered in the respondent’s record as a
member of the Bar, and notice of the
same be served on the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, and on the Office of the
Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban,