GR 100643; (December, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100643 December 12, 1995
ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Br. 79, Morong Rizal, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR QUEZON CITY, and AGUEDO EUGENIO, respondents.
FACTS
Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, counsel for petitioner Adez Realty, Inc., was disbarred by the Supreme Court on October 30, 1992. The Court found him guilty of intercalating a material fact in a decision of the Court of Appeals, which he then appealed to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. This act altered the factual findings of the appellate court with the apparent purpose of misleading the Supreme Court to obtain a favorable judgment. His motion for reconsideration was denied.
Subsequently, Atty. Dacanay filed multiple pleadings seeking reinstatement. He initially filed a Motion to Lift Disbarment in February 1994, attaching certifications of good moral character from various religious and judicial figures. This was denied in August 1994. He persisted, filing further ex-parte motions and personal letters to the Court in December 1994, March 1995, August 1995, and November 1995. In these pleadings, he expressed profound remorse, admitted full and sole responsibility for his dishonest act, detailed the hardship suffered by his family, and pleaded for compassion and another chance to prove his worthiness to practice law.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should lift the order of disbarment and reinstate Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay to the practice of law.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the motion and lifted the disbarment. The legal logic rests on the Court’s inherent power to regulate the practice of law, which includes the authority to discipline and, upon a showing of reformation and penitence, to reinstate a disbarred attorney. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions of mental fitness, high morality, and faithful compliance with professional rules.
The Court found that the three-year period of disbarment had served its purpose. It provided Atty. Dacanay sufficient time for reflection and redemption. His series of pleas, marked by a full admission of guilt, acceptance of responsibility (retracting his earlier attempt to blame his secretary), and demonstrated remorse, convinced the Court that he had undergone reformation. His submissions showed he was ready to meet the profession’s exacting standards again. However, the Court sternly warned him that the privilege of practicing law is conditional and that any future infraction would be dealt with severely. The disbarment was lifted effective immediately, allowing him to resume practice upon payment of the required legal fees.