Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Quinciano Vailoces, a member of the Philippine bar and a notary public, acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus on December 14, 1950. The will was subsequently presented for probate before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. Procedural History: The probate court denied probate to the will, finding it to be a forgery. Based on this decision, a criminal action for falsification of public document was filed against Vailoces and the attesting witnesses. Vailoces and the witnesses were found guilty and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with respect to Vailoces but modified it for his co-accused. Vailoces was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. This sentence became final, and Vailoces began serving it. Consequently, the offended party instituted the present disbarment proceedings. The Petition: Respondent Vailoces disputed the judgment of conviction, contending that the evidence was insufficient and that the charge was motivated by malice. He also pleaded double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is amenable to disbarment based on his conviction for falsification of public document. Whether the defense of double jeopardy is applicable to disbarment proceedings.
Ruling
The respondent is removed from his office as attorney, and his name is ordered to be erased from the roll of attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent is amenable to disbarment based on his conviction for falsification of public document: The Court held that under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended if convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes acts contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. The crime of falsification of public document, for which the respondent was convicted, is clearly contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals, and thus involves moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that it is well-settled that crimes involving fraud, such as forgery, denote moral turpitude. Therefore, having been found guilty and convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude by a final judgment, the respondent rendered himself amenable to disbarment. The sufficiency of the conviction, as argued by the respondent, cannot be disputed in disbarment proceedings as it is a closed chapter. The only issue is the fact of conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. On whether the defense of double jeopardy is applicable to disbarment proceedings: The Court ruled that the respondent's plea of double jeopardy is untenable. The defense of double jeopardy applies only when a person is prosecuted for the same offense or related offenses. Disbarment proceedings are not criminal in nature; rather, they are intended to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court. The purpose is to ensure that those who exercise the function of the legal profession are competent, honorable, and reliable, in whom courts and clients can repose confidence. Therefore, being subjected to disbarment after a criminal conviction does not constitute double jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
A member of the bar convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is amenable to disbarment under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, and the sufficiency of the conviction cannot be disputed in disbarment proceedings.