De los Angeles, In re
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles was convicted of attempted bribery by the Court of Appeals and 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. Procedural History: Following his conviction, respondent was required to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of his profession. The Petition: Respondent appealed to the Court's sympathy, citing his six children and stating that any offense was merely an error of judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles should be disbarred from the practice of law following his conviction for attempted bribery. Whether bribery constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude justifying disbarment.
Ruling
The respondent, Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles, is ordered removed from his office as attorney and his name is stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles should be disbarred following his conviction for attempted bribery: The Court found that under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed from office if convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The rationale behind this rule is that the continued possession of good moral character is a requisite for the rightful continuance of a lawyer in the practice of law. Consequently, the loss of such qualification justifies disbarment. The Court acknowledged the respondent's appeal to sympathy, citing his six children and the potential stigma of dishonor. However, the Court also noted the respondent's admission that if he committed the offense, it was merely due to an error of judgment which he deplored. Despite the sympathy for the respondent's plight, the Court was constrained to decree his disbarment as ordained by the rules. On whether bribery constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude justifying disbarment: The Court affirmed that bribery is admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude. This classification is crucial because Section 25 of Rule 127 explicitly provides for disbarment upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court cited established legal authorities, namely 7 C.J.S., p. 736 and 5 Am. Jur. p. 428, to support the proposition that bribery is a crime inherently involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the conviction for attempted bribery, being a crime involving moral turpitude, directly triggers the application of the disbarment rule.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, such as bribery, shall be disbarred from the practice of law, as the continued possession of good moral character is a requisite for the rightful continuance in the practice of law.