Case Digest (A.C. No. 6792) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Soriano v. Dizon, complainant Roberto Soriano filed on May 20, 2004 a Complaint-Affidavit with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Manuel Dizon. Soriano alleged that Dizon’s November 29, 2001 conviction by Branch 60, RTC Baguio City for frustrated homicide—a crime involving moral turpitude—together with his violent and deceitful conduct and failure to satisfy civil liabilities, violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warranted disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Dizon defaulted by not filing an Answer; after an ex-parte hearing, Soriano submitted his Position Paper. On December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita Herbosa issued a Report and Recommendation, later approved by the IBP Board of Governors on March 12, 2005. Thereafter, the Supreme Court received the case for decision.The facts as found by the trial court reveal that on August
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6792) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Proceedings in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
- Complainant Roberto Soriano filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP seeking disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (frustrated homicide).
- Respondent failed to answer; the CBD declared him in default, held an ex-parte hearing, and required Soriano to file a Position Paper, after which the case was submitted.
- Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa rendered a Report and Recommendation (Dec. 6, 2004), later adopted by the IBP Board of Governors (Mar. 12, 2005), urging disbarment under Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
- Criminal Incident and Conviction
- On an evening in Baguio City, an intoxicated Atty. Dizon, angered by a taxi overtaking him, pursued driver-complainant Soriano, attempted to assault him, then retrieved a revolver (handle wrapped in a handkerchief) and shot Soriano in the neck.
- Witness Antonio Billanes corroborated the attack; medical evidence showed a lacerated carotid artery and resultant paralysis of Soriano’s left side and loss of livelihood.
- RTC Branch 60 (Baguio City) found Dizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide (Nov. 29, 2001), imposed an indeterminate penalty (6 months arresto mayor to 6 years prisión correccional), and ordered civil damages (₱76,293 actual; ₱100,000 moral; ₱100,000 exemplary). Dizon was granted probation on condition of satisfying his civil liabilities, which he has not yet complied with and has appealed.
- Ethical Findings and Supreme Court Proceedings
- Commissioner Herbosa found Canon 1, Rule 1.01 violations: unlawful, dishonest and immoral conduct—driving under the influence, violent aggression, illegal firearm use, denial of wrongdoing, lies, and non-compliance with civil obligations.
- The IBP Board’s Resolution adopting the Report was forwarded to the Supreme Court (July 8, 2005). The Court reviewed whether frustrated homicide under these circumstances involves moral turpitude and whether disbarment is warranted.
Issues:
- Does the crime of frustrated homicide as committed by Atty. Dizon involve moral turpitude?
- If so, does such conviction and attendant conduct warrant his disbarment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)