GR 43301 45665; (April, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43301-45665. April 1, 1980
EMETERIO MAGAT, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Bataan, Br. II, JOVITA T. GANZON and PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BATAAN, respondents; EMETERIO MAGAT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOVITA T. GANZON, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from an unlawful detainer proceeding. Atty. Ceferino R. Magat, acting as counsel, engaged in a pattern of filing multiple petitions before the Supreme Court concerning the same subject matter and cause of action. These actions were deemed deliberate attempts to delay the enforcement of a judgment that had long become final and executory. Consequently, in a resolution dated October 28, 1977, the Court suspended Atty. Magat from the practice of law effective immediately and until further orders. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty of fidelity to a client is secondary to the paramount duty of good faith and honorable dealing toward the judicial tribunal, which includes the obligation to assist in the speedy disposition of cases.
Following his suspension, Atty. Magat and members of his family repeatedly pleaded for judicial clemency over a period exceeding two years. They expressed profound regret for his past misconduct, an avowal to mend his ways, and invoked the Court’s compassion due to the severe financial and economic hardships suffered by his family as a result of his inability to practice law and earn a livelihood.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant judicial clemency and lift the suspension of Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court resolved to terminate the suspension. The Court clarified that the suspension of a lawyer is not imposed primarily as a punitive measure but as a protective one, aimed at safeguarding the public and the integrity of the legal profession. In considering the plea for clemency, the Court evaluated the prolonged period of suspension, the repeated expressions of remorse from Atty. Magat and his family, and the demonstrated financial suffering endured due to his inability to work.
The Court was satisfied that Atty. Magat had come to appreciate the gravity of his dereliction of duty, which undermined the administration of justice and the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. His assurances of reformed conduct and regained probity were deemed sufficient to warrant his restoration. However, the lifting of the suspension was coupled with a stern warning that any subsequent act of misconduct would be met with more severe disciplinary consequences. The decision underscores the Court’s balancing act between maintaining professional discipline and exercising compassionate discretion for rehabilitation.