Case Summary (A.M. No. 2410)
Charges and Initial Sentencing
On August 10, 1976, both Rodolfo Pajo and Clodualdo Origenes were charged with falsification of a public document under Article 172, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Following a trial, on April 14, 1980, the City Court found them guilty. Origenes was sentenced to a prison term of four months and one day to three years and six months along with a fine. Pajo, found guilty as an accomplice, received a lesser sentence.
Appeal and Revisions of Judgment
Pajo and Origenes appealed their convictions. The Court of Appeals upheld Origenes' conviction without modification, while Pajo’s conviction was elevated to that of a principal due to conspiracy, increasing his penalty and fine on February 22, 1982. He was also informed of the resolutions pertaining to his case on March 10 and April 15 of the same year.
Petition for Review and Denial
On June 7, 1982, Pajo sought review of the appellate decision, but this petition was denied by the First Division of the Supreme Court on June 14, 1982, citing lack of material dates and the lack of merit in the case. A motion for reconsideration was submitted shortly after, but the timely filing of the original petition was questioned.
Grounds for Disbarment
The disbarment proceedings against Pajo commenced with Administrative Case No. 2410 on June 29, 1982. Pajo was suspended from practicing law during this period and was required to show cause for his disbarment. However, he did not effectively argue against the grounds for disbarment stemming from his final conviction.
Legal Standard for Disbarment
According to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney may be disbarred for various reasons, including moral turpitude and gross misconduct. Pajo’s conviction for falsification, involving deceptive practices while executing a deed of sale, fell under these definitions, indicating a serious breach of ethical conduct expected of legal practitioners.
Conclusion on Moral Turpitude
The acts of falsifying the deed of sale, particularly for a vendor who had been deceased for an extended duration, underscored Pajo's m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 2410)
Case Background
- Respondents Rodolfo Pajo and Clodualdo Origenes were charged with falsification of a public document under Article 172, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code on August 10, 1976.
- The City Court of Davao City convicted both individuals on April 14, 1980.
- Clodualdo Origenes was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four months and one day to three years, six months, and twenty-one days, alongside a fine of P1,000.00, with additional subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Rodolfo Pajo, found guilty as an accomplice, received a lesser sentence of four months and one day and a fine of P500.00, also with provisions for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Appeal and Court of Appeals' Ruling
- Clodualdo Origenes' conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals with no modifications; however, Pajo's status was elevated to that of a principal in the crime, resulting in a harsher sentence.
- On February 22, 1982, the appellate decision mandated Pajo to serve a prison term of three years, six months, and twenty-one days and to pay a fine of P1,000.00.
- Pajo received the appellate decision on March 10, 1982, and the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on April 15, 1982.
Petition for Review
- Atty. Pajo filed a petition for review on certiorari on June 7, 1982, contesting the appellate decision.
- The First Division of th