AC 1976; (August, 1983) (Digest)
A.C. No. 1976 August 31, 1983
Bonifacio G. Punla, complainant, vs. Clemente M. Soriano, respondent.
FACTS
Bonifacio Punla sought the disbarment of lawyer Clemente Soriano for alleged mental dishonesty, moral delinquency, and lack of integrity. The complaint stemmed from Soriano’s actions as private prosecutor in two criminal cases for oral defamation filed against Punla. During the proceedings, after the cases were transferred to Apalit for trial, the defense moved to nullify the Apalit proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. In opposing these motions, Soriano filed written pleadings signed as “ANDRES F. PANGILINAN Trial Fiscal and CLEMENTE M. SORIANO Private Prosecutor … By: (Sgd.) CLEMENTE M. SORIANO.” Special Counsel Andres Pangilinan later wrote a letter stating the opposition was prepared by Soriano without his consent and was Soriano’s “sole responsibility.” This led to criminal charges for falsification of public documents against Soriano.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Clemente M. Soriano should be disbarred for misconduct, specifically for allegedly falsifying a public document by signing a pleading in the name of the trial fiscal without proper authority.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint. The legal logic rests on the conclusive effect of Soriano’s acquittal in the related criminal case for falsification. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in acquitting Soriano, found as a fact that the preparation and filing of the pleadings were not only known to the trial fiscal but were authorized by him. This factual finding binds the disbarment proceeding, which is based on identical facts. The Court emphasized that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct affecting a lawyer’s character as an officer of the court. Given the acquittal, which established the lack of criminal intent and the presence of authorization, no such clear case exists. The Court noted that while Pangilinan later called the pleading Soriano’s “sole responsibility,” he was present in court when Soriano orally opposed the motions, indicating awareness. Consequently, there is no ground for disciplinary action against Soriano.