G.R. No. A.C. No. 5054, March 02, 2021
SOLEDAD NUÑEZ, REPRESENTED BY ANAMIAS B. CO, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR COMPLAINANT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT, RESPONDENT. [A.C. No. 6484, March 2, 2021] ADELITA B. LLUNAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT, RESPONDENT. IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF ROMULO L. RICAFORT.

FACTS

Romulo L. Ricafort (petitioner) filed a Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion and a Supplemental Petition seeking reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. He had been subjected to three administrative disciplinary complaints: A.C. No. 5054 (decided May 29, 2002), A.C. No. 8253 (decided March 15, 2011), and A.C. No. 6484 (decided June 16, 2015). In A.C. No. 5054, he was indefinitely suspended for failing to remit the proceeds from a lot sale to his client and defying a final court judgment. In A.C. No. 8253, he was disbarred for depositing a client’s money into his personal account and failing to file a required memorandum. In A.C. No. 6484, he was again disbarred for failing to institute an agreed-upon action, failing to return a client’s money, and practicing law while under indefinite suspension. The petitions for clemency, filed in 2019, were assigned to different Justices under the three docket numbers, resulting in conflicting actions: referral to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) in A.C. No. 5054, mere noting in A.C. No. 6484, and denial in A.C. No. 8253. The Court subsequently consolidated A.C. Nos. 5054 and 6484.

ISSUE

Whether or not judicial clemency should be granted in favor of petitioner Romulo L. Ricafort.

RULING

The Court, exercising its constitutional power to regulate the practice of law, denied the petition for judicial clemency. The Court took the opportunity to establish new, institutionalized guidelines for evaluating such petitions, moving away from the framework set in Re: Diaz. The new guidelines require a petitioner to prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence and establish a prima facie case for clemency. Key factors include: (1) proof of remorse and reformation; (2) a showing that the petitioner has maintained a good moral character since disbarment; (3) that the petitioner possesses the requisite competence and learning in law; (4) the present action is not premature, considering the gravity of the offense and the time elapsed (at least five years from disbarment or from a prior denied clemency petition); (5) the petitioner has complied with all court orders; (6) the petitioner has made restitution or settled claims with injured parties; and (7) the petitioner’s conduct will not pose a threat to the public or the integrity of the legal profession. The Court found that the petitioner failed to meet these stringent standards. His multiple serious infractions involving breaches of fiduciary duty, defiance of court orders, and unauthorized practice of law demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. The Court emphasized that clemency is an act of mercy that must be balanced with the duty to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. The petitioner’s advanced age and desire for legacy were insufficient to overcome the need to preserve confidence in the legal system. Therefore, his petition for reinstatement was denied.