Adez Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 30, 1992, the Supreme Court found Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay guilty of 'intercalating a material fact in a decision of the Court of Appeals' which he had appealed via certiorari. The Court determined that Dacanay altered the factual findings of the lower court with the 'apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment.' Consequently, the Court ordered his disbarment from the practice of law. Procedural History: Following his disbarment, Dacanay filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 20, 1992, claiming the inserted words were written by his client and 'unwittingly adopted' by his secretary. The Court denied this motion on December 3, 1992. On February 23, 1994, Dacanay filed a 'Motion to Lift (Disbarment),' expressing remorse and providing certifications of good moral character from various religious and judicial figures. This motion was denied on August 11, 1994. He filed subsequent motions and letters in December 1994, March 1995, August 1995, and November 1995, eventually admitting full personal responsibility for the intercalation. The Petition: The present resolution addresses the series of motions and personal pleas for reinstatement filed by Dacanay. In his final communications, Dacanay abandoned his previous defense of blaming his secretary, stating: 'I realize it was dishonest and unfair to pass the blame to my secretary who was merely following my instructions. The intercalation was my own act and I am justly punished for it.' He pleaded for mercy, citing his destitution and the suffering of his family as grounds for the Court to grant him a chance to redeem himself.
Issue(s)
Whether the disbarment of Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay should be lifted based on his subsequent conduct, admission of guilt, and pleas for reinstatement.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the disbarment of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY from the practice of law is LIFTED and he is therefore allowed to resume the practice of law upon payment of the required legal fees. This resolution is effective immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Reinstatement: The Court found that the three-year period of disbarment provided Dacanay 'sufficient time and occasion to soul-search and reflect on his professional conduct.' The Court emphasized that his eventual 'admission of guilt and repeated pleas for compassion and reinstatement' served as evidence that he was ready to meet the 'exacting standards' of the legal profession once more. Applying the principle that the Supreme Court is the 'guardian of the legal profession,' the Court noted that while it has the power to discipline, it also has the capacity to recognize genuine reformation. The Court reasoned that Dacanay's transition from blaming others to accepting full responsibility for the 'grievous offense' of intercalating judicial records demonstrated the necessary moral recovery. However, the Court issued a 'stern warning' that the practice of law is not a right but a 'privilege burdened with conditions,' specifically requiring 'adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness' and 'maintenance of the highest degree of morality.' The Court concluded that Dacanay had proven himself worthy to practice law again, provided he maintains 'respect and fidelity to the Court.'
Main Doctrine
Reinstatement to the practice of law is a discretionary act of the Supreme Court based on the applicant's proof of reformation. The Court, as the guardian of the legal profession, has the bounden duty to ensure that only those who maintain the highest degree of morality and mental fitness are allowed to practice. A disbarred lawyer seeking reinstatement must demonstrate through their conduct and admission of responsibility that they are once again worthy of the public's trust and the Court's confidence.