Case Summary (A.C. No. 7940)
Applicable Law
The relevant legal framework includes Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which specifies grounds for disbarment, and the Revised Penal Code concerning the crime of falsification of public documents.
Background and Summary of Facts
In May 1996, Elmer Abastillas, a volleyball team coach, solicited financial aid from the mayor of Ozamis City, which was granted and processed. Respondent Atty. Pactolin later filed a complaint against city council member Ferraren, alleging the illegal disbursement of public funds, attaching what he claimed was a falsified letter from Abastillas. Ferraren, aggrieved by the complaint, initiated criminal proceedings against Pactolin for falsification of public documents, leading to a conviction by the Sandiganbayan on November 12, 2003. Atty. Pactolin's appeal to the Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction on May 20, 2008, ultimately referred the case for administrative action under Rule 139-B.
Administrative Proceedings and Initial Findings
During the administrative proceedings at the IBP, the complainant Ferraren failed to appear or submit evidence. Consequently, on October 9, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation to dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence. However, this dismissal did not preclude the subsequent review and analysis of Atty. Pactolin's conviction in light of disbarment implications.
Core Issue
The primary legal question presented was whether Atty. Pactolin's conviction for falsification constituted sufficient grounds for disbarment under the established legal standards related to moral turpitude.
Ruling and Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court underscored that it is no longer necessary to revisit the merits of the conviction, which had become final. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court noted that the crime of falsifying public documents is inherently indicative of moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that lawyers are held to high standards of moral integrity, and Atty. Pactolin's conduct did not meet these standards, warranting disbarment.
The Court also highlighted its authority to disbar lawyers for crimes involving moral turpitude, concluding that disbarment is imperative given the circumstances of the conviction and the need to preserve the legal professio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7940)
Background and Procedural History
- The case involves Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, a lawyer and then Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental.
- The factual background pertains to a request for financial assistance by Elmer Abastillas, playing coach of the Ozamis City volleyball team, to Mayor Benjamin A. Fuentes in May 1996.
- Mayor Fuentes approved the P10,000 financial assistance, designating Mario R. Ferraren as acting Officer-in-Charge (OIC) during his absence.
- Atty. Pactolin obtained a photocopy of Abastillas's letter and filed a complaint against Ferraren alleging illegal disbursement of public funds, attaching a falsified letter showing Ferraren approved the disbursement.
- Ferraren filed a falsification case against Atty. Pactolin at the Sandiganbayan.
- On November 12, 2003, the Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Pactolin of falsification of a public document, sentencing him to 2 years and 4 months up to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days imprisonment, fines, and accessory penalties.
- Atty. Pactolin’s conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court on May 20, 2008.
- The case was also treated administratively under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline dismissed the administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence on October 9, 2010.
Legal Issue Presented
- The central question is whether Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred following his final conviction for the crime of falsification involving moral turpitude.
Court’s Findings on Falsification and Moral Turpitude
- The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the letter attached by Atty. Pactolin was falsified.
- There was a clear absence of satisfactory explanation from Atty. Pactolin for possessing and using the forged letter.
- The settled rule applied was that possession and use of a forged document without satisfactory explanation implicate