In re Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rodolfo Pajo and Clodualdo Origenes were charged with falsification of a public document for forging a deed of sale. The alleged vendor, Nestoria Origenes, had been deceased for approximately eight years prior to the execution of the deed on February 16, 1976. Respondent Pajo, an attorney, prepared and notarized this falsified deed, despite having known the deceased and being aware of her death. Procedural History: The City Court of Davao City found both Pajo and Origenes guilty of falsification. Origenes was sentenced as principal, and Pajo as an accomplice. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed Origenes' conviction but found Pajo guilty as a principal, increasing his sentence. Pajo received a copy of the appellate decision on March 10, 1982, and a denial of his motion for reconsideration on April 15, 1982. The Petition: On June 7, 1982, Atty. Rodolfo Pajo filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision. The petition was denied by the First Division of the Supreme Court on June 14, 1982, due to the absence of a statement of material dates and lack of merit. The case was subsequently referred to the en banc for disbarment proceedings against Atty. Pajo. A motion for reconsideration of the denial was filed, but the petition was ultimately found to have been filed fifty-three days after the petitioner received the appellate court's resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, exceeding the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Rodolfo Pajo should be disbarred by reason of his conviction for falsification of public document. Whether the crime of falsification of public document involves moral turpitude. Whether Atty. Pajo's acts constituted deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office.
Ruling
Respondent Rodolfo Pajo is hereby disbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the roll of attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disbarment by reason of final judgment: The Court held that Atty. Rodolfo Pajo should be disbarred by reason of his final conviction for falsification of public document. The disbarment proceedings were initiated based on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which enumerates grounds for removal or suspension of attorneys. The conviction for falsification of public document, as established by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, had become final. The Court emphasized that it was no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction itself, as that matter had been settled by the denial of the petition for review on certiorari. The respondent had failed to show any cause why he should not be disbarred based on this final judgment. On whether falsification of public document involves moral turpitude: The Court unequivocally stated that the crime of falsification of public document is clearly contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals, and therefore, involves moral turpitude. This classification is crucial because conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138. The nature of the offense, which involves intentional dishonesty and the perversion of truth in a public document, inherently reflects a depravity that goes against the ethical standards expected of a member of the legal profession. The Court cited De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces to support this classification. On whether Atty. Pajo's acts constituted deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office: The Court found that Atty. Pajo's acts amounted to deceit, malpractice, and misconduct in office as a lawyer. He took advantage of his office as an attorney to prepare a deed of sale purportedly executed by a person who had been dead for eight years. The factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which were amply supported by the records, established that Atty. Pajo knew the supposed affiant was deceased and had even attended her wake and burial. Preparing and notarizing such a document, knowing it to be false, constitutes a betrayal of the trust reposed in him as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. This conduct falls squarely within the grounds for disbarment provided in Section 27 of Rule 138, specifically "deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office."
Main Doctrine
A lawyer found guilty of falsification of public document, a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disbarred from the practice of law pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as conviction for such a crime constitutes deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office.