AC 561; (April, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 561; April 27, 1967
Case Parties:
IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO P. VINZON, respondent.
Office of the Solicitor General for complainant.
Isidro P. Vinzon for and in his own behalf as respondent.
FACTS
This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon, referred to the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General following the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA- G.R. No. 02243 -CR, which affirmed the conviction of Vinzon and his wife, Filomena D. Vinzon, for the crime of estafa. The Court of Appeals found that the spouses were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for failing to deliver and misappropriating the sum of P7,000, part of a U.S. Depositary check amounting to P9,621.60 belonging to Felicidad M. Bagtas, the mentally incompetent, unremarried widow of veteran Maximino C. Bagtas.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals established that Atty. Vinzon, acting as attorney for the widow, caused the alteration of her official address with the U.S. Veterans Administration to his own address in Cavite City. He and his wife brought Bagtas and her companions to their residence under the pretense of meeting a U.S.V.A. investigator, where Bagtas was made to thumbprint documents without understanding their contents. Later, Mrs. Vinzon took Bagtas and her mother to Manila, where an unidentified man delivered P2,421.00 to the mother, after which she gave amounts totaling P200.00 to this man and Mrs. Vinzon.
In his answer to the disbarment petition, Vinzon admitted the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision but argued that a conviction per se is not sufficient for disbarment, questioned the legal validity of the conviction, and denied any direct evidence linking him to cashing the check or receiving its proceeds. Despite his request for a hearing, he failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on June 21, 1963.
ISSUE
Whether upon conviction for the crime of estafa, the respondent may be disbarred.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon. The Court held that by failing to appear at the scheduled hearing despite notice and his own request for one, the respondent waived his right to be heard. On the merits, the Court ruled that estafa is a crime involving moral turpitude, as it is an act contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals. Since the respondent’s guilt, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, can no longer be questioned, his disbarment is inevitable.