Case Digest (Adm. Case. No. 350)
Facts:
The case revolves around Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles, who was the respondent in this administrative matter. Dalmacio de los Angeles was convicted of attempted bribery by the Court of Appeals, an offense which carried significant moral implications. On August 7, 1959, the appellate court rendered a final decision imposing a penalty of two years, four months, and one day of destierro (exile), alongside a monetary fine of P2,300, with the stipulation that he would face subsidiary destierro should he be unable to pay the fine. Given this conviction, the Supreme Court required de los Angeles to show cause under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court as to why he should not be disbarred from practicing law. In his written explanation, de los Angeles implored the Court for sympathy and mercy, emphasizing his family responsibilities, mentioning that he had six children, the eldest being 16 years old and the youngest only 4, and he highlighted the seveCase Digest (Adm. Case. No. 350)
Facts:
- Conviction and Sentencing
- Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles was convicted of the crime of attempted bribery.
- The conviction came through a final decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11411-R.
- He was sentenced to:
- Two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of destierro.
- A fine of P2,300.
- An order for subsidiary destierro in case of his insolvency.
- Show Cause Requirement and Explanation
- Under section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, de los Angeles was required to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law.
- In his submission, he appealed to the Court’s sympathy and mercy:
- He cited his family situation, mentioning that he has six children to support, with ages ranging from 4 to 16 years.
- He expressed concern over the future stigma of dishonor that his children might face if disciplinary action was taken against him.
- He asserted that his alleged offense was a result of an error in judgment, which he sincerely deplores.
- Legal Provision and Moral Turpitude
- Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court mandates that a member of the bar may be removed from practice if convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
- The rule emphasizes:
- The continued possession of good moral character as a requisite for the lawful practice of law.
- That the loss of such moral qualification justifies disbarment.
- Precedents cited include:
- Mortel vs. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586.
- References from 53 Off. Gaz., No. 3, 628.
- Nature of the Offense
- Bribery, as a felony, is recognized as involving moral turpitude:
- This is supported by noted authorities such as 7 C.J.S., p. 786, and 5 Am. Jur., p. 428.
- Despite the Court’s sympathy for his personal situation, the legal requirement remained paramount.
Issues:
- Whether Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles, having been convicted of attempted bribery—a felony involving moral turpitude—is disqualified from the practice of law based on his moral character.
- Examination of whether the crime committed meets the threshold for disbarment under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court.
- Assessing if mitigating factors such as his personal hardships and expression of remorse could justify his continued membership in the bar.
- Whether the procedural requirements for disbarment under the Rules of Court were properly satisfied in ordering his removal from the practice of law.
- Consideration of the requirement to show cause for avoiding disbarment.
- Evaluation of the finality and gravity of his conviction as the basis for disciplinary measures.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)