In a 20-page decision, the High Court disbarred lawyer Manuel Dizon from the practice of law after he was found guilty of frustrated homicide in a case filed against Dizon by taxi driver Roberto Soriano.
The High Court upheld the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to disbar Dizon over his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is basis for disbarment or suspension.
The High Court said Dizon’s disbarment is necessary because his actions erode the public perception of the legal profession and constitutes moral turpitude.
Court records showed that Dizon was on his way home to Concepcion, Tarlac when Soriano overtook his car.
Dizon, then under the influence of liquor, tailed Soriano’s taxi until Soriano stopped at the corner of Chugum and Cariño streets. The two alighted from their vehicles and a heated argument ensued.
Dizon then took a gun from compartment of his car, wrapped its handle with a handkerchief, then shot Soriano in the neck.
Soriano fell on Dizon’s thigh and the accused pushed the victim away and fled.
Concerned residents came to Soriano’s aid and brought him to the hospital.
Soriano sustained a spinal cord injury which has paralyzed the left side of his body.
He filed charges against Dizon for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and asked that his conviction for frustrated homicide should result in his disbarment.
Dizon was also charged with frustrated homicide before the Baguio City Regional Trial Court Branch 60. The Baguio RTC found Dizon guilty of the charges on Nov. 29, 2001.
His application for probation was granted on the condition that he would pay civil liabilities to the victim amounting to P276,000.
"The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude," the SC said in its decision. "By his conduct, respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted like God on the road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted."
The High Court said Dizon’s reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to continue practicing law.
The SC also said Dizon violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, after it was found that the gun he used in shooting Soriano was an unlicensed firearm. Canon 1 states that a lawyer "shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
The SC also said that, after four years, Dizon has yet to satisfy his civil liabilities to Soriano: "All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through this incident that he is wanting in even basic sense of justice. He obtained the benevolence of the trial court when it suspended his sentence and granted him probation. And yet, it has been four years since he was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to complainant. To date, respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill that obligation."
In a separate decision the High Court suspended lawyer Rolando Bala for six months for Bala’s negligence in handling his client’s case and for uttering invectives to his clients when they inquired about the status of their case.
The High Court also ordered Bala to return the money paid by his clients, Eduardo and Teresita Garcia, for his legal services with legal interest.
In their complaint against Bala, the Garcia couple claimed they hired Bala to represent them in their appeal over the adverse decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) before the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review.
The Garcia couple said Bala erroneously filed a notice of appeal with the DARAB, instead of filing it before the CA, resulting in the lapse of the prescriptive period within which to appeal the case before the CA.
The High Court said Bala violated Rule 18.02 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 18.01 states that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and that the lawyer shall be liable for any negligence in connection with the case he or she is handling.
Rule 18.04 states that a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. — Jose Rodel Clapano