G.R. No. 439 EN BANC A.C. No. 439; April 12, 1961
LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS, petitioner, vs. QUINCIANO VAILOCES, respondent.

FACTS

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Quinciano Vailoces. As a notary public, he acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus on December 14, 1950. The will was subsequently presented for probate but was contested by the decedent’s surviving spouse and daughter. The probate court, after finding the will to be a forgery, denied its probate in a decision that became final.
Based on this judicial finding, a criminal case for falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Vailoces and the attesting witnesses. The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental found them guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Vailoces but modified the penalties for his co-accused. The judgment against Vailoces became final, and he began serving his prison sentence. Consequently, the offended party initiated these disbarment proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Quinciano Vailoces should be disbarred on the basis of his final conviction for the crime of falsification of a public document.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Quinciano Vailoces is disbarred. The legal basis is Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which provides for the removal or suspension of a lawyer who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude encompasses acts contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. The crime of falsification of a public document, of which Vailoces was finally convicted, unequivocally falls within this definition. The Court cited established jurisprudence that crimes like forgery and falsification, where fraud is an element, inherently involve moral turpitude.
The Court rejected Vailoces’s defenses. First, it held that it could not re-examine the sufficiency of evidence supporting his criminal conviction, as that judgment was final and executed. The sole pertinent fact for the disbarment proceeding was the existence of a final conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. Second, the plea of double jeopardy was untenable. Double jeopardy applies only to successive criminal prosecutions for the same offense. Disbarment is not a criminal penalty but a sui generis proceeding intended to protect the courts and the public by ensuring that only competent, honorable, and reliable individuals remain as officers of the court. Its purpose is to safeguard the administration of justice, not to punish the attorney anew for the crime. Therefore, respondent Quinciano Vailoces was ordered removed from the office of attorney, and his name was to be stricken from the roll of attorneys.