Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1852)
Allegations and Administrative Charges
The administrative complaint (filed January 23, 1987) alleged multiple serious offenses by Mejia: (1) misappropriation and conversion of entrusted funds — part of P27,710 intended for payment of real estate taxes on a Valle Verde I property and part of P40,000 entrusted for taxes and registration expenses of a Valle Verde V property; (2) falsification of documents — specifically, a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985 allegedly executed in favor of Mejia, a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982, and a deed of assignment purportedly executed by Tomas and Remedios Pastor in favor of Bernardo; and (3) issuance of a check to Bernardo for a P50,000 loan while knowing the check was without sufficient funds, and subsequently replacing that check with other checks also lacking sufficient funds.
1992 Disbarment Decision
On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, rendered a per curiam decision finding Mejia guilty of all the charges and imposed the penalty of disbarment. The decision suspended him from the practice of law pending finality, directed that the judgment be recorded in the Bar Confidant’s Office and notified to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for dissemination to the courts concerned.
Subsequent Petitions and Procedural History
Mejia sought reinstatement first on June 1, 1999; the Court denied that petition by resolution dated July 6, 1999. He filed the present petition for review and reinstatement on January 23, 2007. The Court required the complainant to file a comment, but service attempts were unsuccessful (returns-to-sender with “RTS-Unknown” and “RTS-Refused to Receive; Unknown”); accordingly, the Court dispensed with the filing of a comment and proceeded to give due course to Mejia’s petition. No opposition or comment was ultimately filed against the petition.
Legal Standard for Reinstatement
The Court’s decision to reinstate a disbarred attorney lies largely within its sound discretion and is assessed primarily by reference to the public interest in maintaining the orderly and impartial administration of justice. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character and otherwise fit to practice law, analogous to a bar admission candidate. Factors customarily considered include the applicant’s character and standing prior to disbarment, the nature and gravity of the offenses for which disbarment was imposed, the applicant’s conduct and rehabilitation since disbarment, and the length of time that has elapsed between disbarment and the reinstatement application. The Court relied on established precedents (e.g., Cui v. Cui; Tolentino v. Mendoza; Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro; Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan) in articulating and applying this standard.
Applicant’s Rehabilitation, Conduct, and Court’s Reasoning
Mejia acknowledged his prior misconduct and expressed remorse. The Court took note that fifteen years had elapsed since his name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys and that no further transgressions had been attributed to him during that period. Evidence of his post-disbarment life included publication of the Mejia Law Journal (containing his religious and social writings) and his organization of a religious group entitled “El Cristo Movement and Crusade on Miracle of Heart and Mind.” The petitioner also sought reinstatement for personal and familial rehabilitation, asserting repentance and suffering resulting from the disbarment. The Court considered his advanced age (seventy-one), the duration of the ignomi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1852)
Procedural History
- Administrative Case No. 2984 was filed against Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, with the antecedent administrative complaint dated January 23, 1987, lodged by Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr.
- On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision (Per Curiam) declaring respondent Atty. Ismael F. Mejia guilty of all charges and imposing the penalty of disbarment, with immediate suspension pending finality; the dispositive portion of that Decision was reproduced in the source.
- On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law; on July 6, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Resolution denying that petition for reinstatement.
- On January 23, 2007, Mejia filed the present petition for review of Administrative Case No. 2984 with a plea for reinstatement in the practice of law.
- No comment or opposition was filed against the 2007 petition; the Court required complainant Rodolfo M. Bernardo to file a comment but service attempts failed and the Court dispensed with the filing of the comment and gave due course to the petition (details of service attempts appear in a Court Resolution dated February 13, 2007, and subsequent resolutions).
Antecedent Facts and Specific Charges Alleged by Complainant
- The complainant accused his retained attorney, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, of multiple administrative offenses:
- Misappropriation and conversion to personal use of entrusted funds:
- Part of P27,710.00 entrusted for payment of real estate taxes on property belonging to Bernardo, situated in Valle Verde I subdivision.
- Part of P40,000.00 entrusted for payment of taxes and expenses in connection with the registration of title to another Bernardo property in Valle Verde V subdivision.
- Falsification of documents, specifically:
- A special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly executed in Mejia’s favor by Bernardo (referenced as Annex P, par. 51; complainant’s affidavit dated October 4, 1989).
- A deed of sale dated October 22, 1982 (referenced as Annex O, par. 48).
- A deed of assignment purportedly executed by spouses Tomas and Remedios Pastor in Bernardo’s favor (referenced as Annex Q, par. 52).
- Issuance of a check knowing the account lacked funds, in payment of a loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and subsequently replacing that check with others also known to be insufficiently funded.
- Misappropriation and conversion to personal use of entrusted funds:
- The above factual allegations and documentary references were the bases of the charges resulting in the 1992 decision.
1992 Decision — Disbarment (Per Curiam)
- The Supreme Court’s dispositive portion in the July 29, 1992 decision reads, in essence reproduced in the source:
- The Court declared respondent Atty. Ismael F. Mejia guilty of all the charges against him and imposed the penalty of disbarment.
- Pending finality of the judgment, and effective immediately, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia was suspended from the practice of law.
- The Decision was to be spread in his record in the Bar Confidant’s Office, and notice furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator, who was directed to inform all courts concerned.
- The 1992 Decision thus resulted in the removal of Mejia’s name from the Roll of Attorneys and imposition of long-term professional disability.
Reinstatement Petitions and Earlier Resolution
- Mejia sought reinstatement on June 1, 1999; that petition was denied by the Supreme Court En Banc by Resolution dated July 6, 1999.
- After continued passage of time, Mejia filed the present petition on January 23, 2007, accompanied by a plea for reinstatement; no opposition was filed to this petition.
- The Court attempted to obtain a comment from complainant Bernardo via Resolutions dated February 13, 20, and 27, 2007; mailings were returned with notations “RTS-Unknown” and “RTS-Refused to Receive; Unknown,” leading the Court to dispense with the filing of the comment and proceed to give due course to the petition.