106 Phil. 1
Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles was convicted of the crime of attempted bribery in a final decision rendered by the Court of Appeals and was sentenced to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of destierro, and to pay a fine of P2,300, with subsidiary destierro in case of insolvency (CA-G.R. No. 11411-R), and under section 1, Rule 128, of the Rules of Court, he was required to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of his profession.
In his written explanation he appealed to the sympathy and mercy of this Court considering that he has six children to support the eldest being 16 years old and the youngest 4 years who will bear the stigma of dishonor if disciplinary action be taken against him. He made manifest to this Court that if he ever committed what is attributed to him, it was merely due to an error of judgment which he honestly and sincerely deplores.
Under section 25, Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed from his office as attorney if he is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude the reason behind this rule being that the continued possession of a good moral .character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance of the lawyer in the practice of law with the result that the loss of such qualification justifies his disbarment (Mortel vs. Aspiras 100 Phil., 586; 53 Off. Gaz., No. 3, 628). And since bribery is admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude (7 C.J.S., p. 786; 5 Am. Jur. p. 428), this Court, much as it sympathizes with the plight of respondent, is constrained to decree his disbarment as ordained by section 25 of Rule 127.
It is therefore ordered that respondent be removed from his office as attorney and that his name be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.