Soriano v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roberto Soriano filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Manuel Dizon with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Soriano alleged that Dizon's conviction for frustrated homicide, a crime involving moral turpitude, violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warranted disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The underlying incident involved Dizon, while driving under the influence of liquor, becoming enraged after being overtaken by Soriano, a taxi driver. Dizon pursued Soriano, confronted him, and after a physical altercation where Soriano attempted to de-escalate, Dizon retrieved a handgun wrapped in a handkerchief and shot Soriano in the neck, causing serious injury and paralysis. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court convicted Atty. Manuel Dizon of frustrated homicide and ordered him to pay civil damages. Dizon was granted probation, conditioned on satisfying his civil liabilities. However, Dizon appealed his civil liability to the Court of Appeals and has yet to comply with the order to pay damages. The CBD found Dizon in default for failing to submit an Answer and proceeded ex-parte. After Soriano submitted his position paper, the CBD recommended Dizon's disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court for final action. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon. The petition argues that Dizon's conviction for frustrated homicide, under the specific circumstances of the offense, constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, Dizon's conduct, including his aggression, use of a concealed weapon, flight from the scene, denial of the crime, fabrication of a false narrative of being mauled, and persistent refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities despite probation, demonstrates a profound lack of good moral character, rendering him unfit to practice law. The petition seeks disbarment based on these grounds as provided in the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of frustrated homicide committed by respondent involves moral turpitude. Whether respondent's conduct warrants disbarment from the practice of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Atty. Manuel Dizon and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found that respondent's conviction for frustrated homicide, under the attendant circumstances, involved moral turpitude and demonstrated a profound lack of good moral character, rendering him unfit to practice law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of moral turpitude: The Court held that while not every criminal act involves moral turpitude, whether a particular conviction does so depends on the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the circumstances surrounding respondent's commission of frustrated homicide clearly evinced moral turpitude. Respondent was the aggressor, pursuing and shooting the unarmed complainant when the latter least expected it, after the complainant had acted in self-defense. The act of wrapping the gun handle with a handkerchief to avoid leaving fingerprints further demonstrated a sly intention to escape punishment. The Court distinguished this case from International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) v. NLRC, where homicide did not involve moral turpitude due to incomplete self-defense and absence of aggravating circumstances. Here, the trial court found treachery, indicating the respondent's skewed morals. The respondent's extreme arrogance, feeling of self-importance, vindictiveness, and tenacity in pursuing the complainant to exact revenge, all stemming from a simple traffic incident, underscored the depravity of his actions and their inherent baseness. On the issue of disbarment: The Court affirmed the IBP's finding that respondent displayed an utter lack of good moral character, which is an essential qualification for the practice of law. Respondent exhibited dishonest and duplicitous behavior, including attempting an out-of-court settlement and then concocting a false story of being mauled. Medical evidence contradicted his claim of being beaten by three people, supporting the complainant's version of the incident. Lawyers are expected to be ministers of truth and to act in good faith, not to mislead the court or others. Respondent's actions eroded public perception of the legal profession and constituted moral turpitude. Furthermore, his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, despite being granted probation, demonstrated a lack of basic justice and a brazen violation of court orders and the law. The Court emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a privilege requiring a high degree of good moral character, which respondent failed to uphold. His appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and dishonesty clearly showed his unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar, justifying disbarment.
Main Doctrine
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, coupled with conduct demonstrating a lack of good moral character, warrants disbarment from the practice of law, even if the misconduct occurred outside professional dealings. The totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime and the subsequent behavior of the lawyer are crucial in determining fitness to remain in the legal profession.