Title
Soriano vs. Dizon
Case
A.C. No. 6792
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2006
Atty. Manuel Dizon, convicted of frustrated homicide for shooting a taxi driver while intoxicated, exhibited moral turpitude through violent, dishonest conduct and failure to pay civil liabilities, leading to his disbarment.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6792)

Procedural History in Bar Discipline

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline found Dizon in default for failing to file an answer. Following an ex-parte hearing and the complainant’s position paper, Commissioner Herbosa recommended disbarment. The IBP Board endorsed that recommendation, prompting final Supreme Court action.

Moral Turpitude as Ground for Disbarment

Under Rule 138, Section 27, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude renders a lawyer unfit to practice. Moral turpitude is judged by the nature of the act and surrounding circumstances, not by conviction alone. The Court distinguished this case from prior rulings where homicide lacked moral turpitude due to self-defense and absence of malice.

Assessment of Respondent’s Conduct

The respondent’s actions—driving under the influence, initiating violence, employing treachery by shooting an unsuspecting victim, attempting to mask evidence, and fleeing—demonstrate baseness and depravity. His refusal to satisfy court-ordered civil liabilities and persistent dishonesty further reflect a lack of good moral character.

Violation of Professional Responsibility

Atty. Dizon flagrantly breached Canon 1, Rule 1.01 by engaging in unlawful and immoral conduct, disobeying court orders, and failing to honor his attorney’s oath to uphold the law. His fabrications and lies to the court and public violate the profession’s demand for truth and integrity.

Justification for Disbarment

The legal profession requires practitioners of unimpeachable honesty

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.