G.R. No. A.C. No. 3405. March 18, 2014.
Julieta B. Narag, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag, Respondent.
FACTS
This is a Dissenting Opinion by Justice Leonen regarding a petition for readmission to the bar filed by Atty. Dominador M. Narag. The respondent was disbarred fifteen years prior. He is now 80 years old. In his petition, he expressed remorse and presented an affidavit from his son stating that his wife (the complainant) and their children had forgiven him. He also executed a holographic will in favor of his family. During his disbarment, he volunteered in community and humanitarian missions, such as with the Philippine Air Force Reserve Command. He submitted favorable testimonials, including one from Archbishop Emeritus Diosdado A. Talamayan, attesting to his remorse and moral reformation. Justice Leonen references prior cases where this court granted readmission to disbarred lawyers of advanced age who had shown rehabilitation after a long period of disbarment, such as Bernardo v. Atty. Mejia, In Re: Quinciano D. Vailoces, and In Re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for judicial clemency and readmission to the practice of law filed by the 80-year-old Atty. Dominador M. Narag should be granted.
RULING
Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, votes to GRANT the petition for readmission and reinstate Atty. Dominador M. Narag as a lawyer in good standing. He argues that mercy tempers justice and that the respondent has suffered enough from his disbarment for 15 years. He finds the respondent’s expressions of remorse, the forgiveness from his family as evidenced by his son’s affidavit and his holographic will, and the testimonials of good conduct and community service to be sufficient proof of moral rehabilitation. Justice Leonen concludes that the penalty has served its purpose, the respondent has been sufficiently punished, and denying clemency to a remorseful 80-year-old man forgiven by his wronged family would be a failure of human compassion.
