G.R. No. L-60654 (A.M. No. 2410) October 23, 1983
IN RE: DISBARMENT OF RODOLFO PAJO

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Rodolfo Pajo was charged, alongside Clodualdo Origenes, with falsification of a public document. The City Court of Davao found Pajo guilty as an accomplice. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified his liability, finding him guilty as a principal. The appellate court’s decision became final. Pajo subsequently filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was denied for lack of merit and for being filed out of time. The Court noted the petition was filed 53 days after Pajo received the CA resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, well beyond the reglementary period.
The factual basis for the conviction was that Pajo, a notary public, prepared and notarized a deed of sale dated February 16, 1976, purportedly executed by Nestoria Origenes. However, Nestoria had died on July 6, 1968. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Pajo, having grown up near Nestoria’s residence and having attended her wake and burial, knew she was deceased and that the signatory was an impostor.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Rodolfo Pajo should be disbarred by reason of his final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Rodolfo Pajo is ordered disbarred. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, ruled that a final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that in this administrative proceeding, it was no longer tasked with reviewing the merits of the criminal conviction, which had attained finality. The crime of falsification of a public document, which entails the deliberate making of untruthful statements in a public document, is a crime contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals; it therefore inherently involves moral turpitude.
The Court found that Pajo’s actions constituted deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in his office as a lawyer. By exploiting his position as a notary public to authenticate a deed of sale executed by a person long deceased, he violated the oath he took as a lawyer and betrayed the trust of the public and the legal profession. His personal circumstances and claimed good practice, as presented in his manifestation, could not exonerate him from the consequences of his final conviction. Consequently, disbarment was the appropriate penalty, and his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.