A.C. No. 4984; April 1, 2003
Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, et al., complainants, vs. Atty. Felina Dasig, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, mostly high-ranking officers of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), filed an administrative case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig, also a CHED official. The charges stemmed from her conduct while serving as Officer-in-Charge of the CHED Legal Affairs Service. The primary allegations involved multiple instances where she unlawfully demanded and received money from private individuals—specifically, teachers and students—in exchange for facilitating their pending applications for the correction of names before her office. The demanded amounts ranged from P5,000 to P20,000. In some instances, she even suggested improper alternatives, such as advising applicants to file new birth registrations despite prior existing records.
Additional charges included the filing of eleven baseless and subsequently dismissed suits before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, willful failure to pay just debts as evidenced by dishonored checks, instigation of a grave threats complaint by allegedly ordering her son to draw a firearm against complainants, and authoring a libelous report to the President maligning the reputations of several CHED directors to further her own career interests. Despite proper service of the Court’s resolutions requiring her comment, the respondent failed to file an answer or participate in the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, leading to a waiver of her right to present evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig should be disbarred or otherwise disciplined for gross misconduct as a lawyer and public official.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors but imposed the more severe penalty of disbarment. The legal logic is grounded in the fundamental ethical standards governing the legal profession. An attorney’s oath mandates fidelity to the law and proscribes deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. By demanding money in connection with her official functions, the respondent engaged in corrupt, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, violating Rules 1.01 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her actions also constituted a blatant misuse of public position for private gain, a direct breach of Canon 6 and Rule 6.02 applicable to lawyers in government service.
The respondent’s failure to contest the charges, despite notice, was deemed an admission of the factual allegations. The gravity of the misconduct—exploiting her office for extortion, filing frivolous suits, failing to pay debts, and engaging in conduct undermining the integrity of the legal profession—demonstrates moral turpitude and unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and adherence to the highest moral standards is non-negotiable. The acts were not mere private failings but official acts corrupting a public office, causing severe detriment to public confidence in the legal system and the CHED. Consequently, disbarment was warranted to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.