Sorreda v. Per Curiam
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Noel S. Sorreda was previously adjudged guilty of contempt of court and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for maliciously attacking the Court and its members in a letter dated February 21, 2005. For this, he was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Procedural History: In a subsequent letter dated February 4, 2006, Atty. Sorreda reiterated his attacks with increased vehemence and stated he had no intention of apologizing. The Court issued a strong warning, cautioning that any further derogatory remark would lead to disbarment. The Petition: In a Manifestation and Motion dated July 18, 2006, Atty. Sorreda declared that he had defied the suspension order from the start and continued to practice law in lower courts and before the Supreme Court. This defiance and continued practice, coupled with his insulting tone and remorseless attitude, prompted the Court to take further disciplinary action.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Noel S. Sorreda should be disbarred for his continued defiance of court orders, malicious attacks on the Court, and practice of law despite suspension.
Ruling
Atty. Noel S. Sorreda is DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. The resolution takes effect immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Atty. Noel S. Sorreda should be disbarred for his continued defiance of court orders, malicious attacks on the Court, and practice of law despite suspension: The Court found Atty. Sorreda incorrigible and unworthy to continue as an officer of the court due to his persistent arrogance and disrespect. The Court emphasized that members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect, and by taking the lawyer's oath, they become guardians of the law and indispensable instruments in the administration of justice. Atty. Sorreda's deliberate deviation from the path expected of a lawyer, as demonstrated by his penchant for addressing malicious letters and pleadings to the Court, could not be tolerated. His continued practice of law despite a suspension order constituted a grave defiance of the Court's authority. The Court's patience had been stretched to its limit by his obstinacy and defiance, leading to the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in its disciplinary capacity, has the power to disbar members of the Bar for conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. This includes malicious attacks on the Court and its members, defiance of court orders, and persistent disrespect, which demonstrate incorrigibility and unworthiness to continue as an officer of the court. Such actions undermine the administration of justice and the integrity of the legal profession.