BERNARDO v. ATTY. MEJIA, Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint.

FACTS: In our Resolution2 dated March 2, 1983, we referred the case to the Office of the
Ismael F. Mejia (Mejia) who is already seventy-one years old and barred from the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation. Then
practice of law for fifteen years. Before the Court is a Petition for Review of Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili heard the testimonies of the
Administrative Case No. 2984 with plea for reinstatement in the practice of law. complainant and his witness in the presence of respondent's counsel.
GROUND for disbarment are as follows. On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend
1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use: proceedings 3 on the ground that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pq0401-
a) part of the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes P,4 for declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa, poses a
on property belonging to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision known as Valle prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding. The motion was denied.
Verde I; andcralawlibrary Respondent then filed with this Court an urgent motion for issuance of a
b) part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and restraining order.5 On December 19, 1984, we issued a Resolution enjoining the
expenses in connection with the registration of title of Bernardo to another OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings. 6 Ï‚rνll
property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V; In the interim, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court took effect. Hence, the OSG
2) falsification of certain documents, to wit: transferred the disbarment case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
a) a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly executed in his On October 19, 1998, IBP Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo required the parties
favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51, complainant's affidavit dates October 4, to manifest within ten (10) days from notice whether they are still interested in
1989); pursuing the case.7 Ï‚rνll
b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, id.); In his manifestation, 8 complainant confirmed his continuing interest in prosecuting
andcralawlibrary the case.
c) a deed of assignment purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas and For his part, respondent moved to postpone the hearing eight (8) times. In one of
Remedios Pastor, in Bernardo's favor (Annex Q, par. 52, id.); those instances, particularly on August 28, 2001, complainant moved 'that
3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of respondent be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and for
a loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, the case to be deemed submitted for resolution in view of his continuing
replacing said check with others known also to be insufficiently funded.1 failure to present his evidence. However, complainant withdrew such motion
On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision PER upon the promise of the respondent's counsel that on the next hearing,
CURIAM, the dispositive portion of which reads: scheduled on October 4, 2001, he would definitely present his client's evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES the [sic] respondent, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, But even before that date, respondent already manifested that he would not be
guilty of all the charges against him and hereby imposes on him the penalty of able to return to the Philippines for his direct testimony. Instead, he promised to
DISBARMENT. Pending finality of this judgment, and effective immediately, Atty. submit his 'direct testimony in affidavit form.9 In an Order issued that day, the IBP
Ismael F. Mejia is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law. Let a copy of Commissioner reset the hearing for the last time on January 24, 2002 and
this Decision be spread in his record in the Bar Confidant's Office, and notice warned respondent that should he fail to appear or present his 'direct testimony in
thereof furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Court affidavit form, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.10 On January 24,
Administrator who is DIRECTED to inform all the Courts concerned of this 2002, respondent neither appeared nor presented his 'direct testimony in
Decision. affidavit form, hence, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. 11 Ï‚rνll
On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in On March 20, 2003, the IBP Commissioner submitted a Report and
the practice of law. On July 6, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Recommendation finding respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and
Resolution denying the petition for reinstatement. violation of his oath as a lawyer and recommending that he be suspended from
On January 23, 2007, Mejia filed the present Petition for Review of Administrative the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.
Case No. 2984 with a plea for reinstatement in the practice of law. No comment The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and
or opposition was filed against the petition.2 Recommendation, but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one (1) year.
Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great On September 15, 2004, we rendered the assailed Decision.
extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether or In his motion for reconsideration, respondent raised the following
not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial issues:ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ
administration of justice will continue to be preserved even with the applicant's First, the complaint for disbarment was filed by an improper party, complainant
reentry as a counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission not being the offended party.
to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and Second, he was denied due process because the case was submitted for
proper person to practice law. The Court will take into consideration the resolution on January 24, 2002 without his 'direct testimony in affidavit form.
applicant's character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and Third, the disbarment proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to is void because our Resolution dated December 19, 1984 restraining the OSG
the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the from continuing such proceedings has not been lifted.
application for reinstatement.3 Fourth, our Decision is barred by laches because of the lapse of almost fourteen
In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions in the law (14) years from December 19, 1984, the date we restrained the OSG from
profession.chanrobles virtual law library  Fifteen years had already elapsed continuing the disbarment proceedings, until October 19, 1998, the date the IBP
since Mejia's name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys . At the age of Commissioner required the parties to 'manifest whether or not they are still
seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. interested in prosecuting the case.
According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered enough. Through his Fifth, the Resolution dated June 21, 2003 of the IBP Board of Governors
reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem the imposing upon him the penalty of one (1) year suspension 'has attained finality
indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment. and should be deemed served already.
After his disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law Journal, a publication containing And sixth, he acted under a 'firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before
his religious and social writings. He also organized a religious organization and the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a 'bachelor because his first
named it "El Cristo Movement and Crusade on Miracle of Heart and Mind." marriage is void even if there is no judicial declaration of nullity.
The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. Fifteen years has passed since In his comment, complainant countered that: first, respondent cannot claim
Mejia was punished with the severe penalty of disbarment. Although the denial of due process because his failure to adduce evidence was due to his own
Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejia's disbarment, it also cannot close fault; second, it is now too late to invoke this Court's Resolution of December 19,
its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the age of the 1984 restraining the OSG from continuing the disbarment
petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of proceedings; third, laches does not apply because the 14-year hiatus was
disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the brought about by the said Resolution; fourth, the penalty of one-year suspension
Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot be deemed 'final and served
1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown already because it is a mere recommendation to this Court; and fifth, although
remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his previous marriage was annulled, it can not erase the betrayal of trust and
his punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever abuse of confidence he committed against complainant.
mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to Respondent's motion is bereft of merit.
show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its We observe that in his motion, respondent alleged new issues12 which were not
purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to considered below. Nonetheless, in view of the caveat that the power to disbar
punish but to correct offenders. must be exercised with great caution, we shall resolve all these new issues.
We reiterate, however, and remind petitioner that the practice of law is a I - Improper Party
privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of We find no merit in respondent's contention that the complainant, being the father
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful of the offended party, does not have the standing to file the instant complaint.
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the continuing Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The only
requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice law.4 question for determination is whether respondent is fit to be a member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for reinstatement in the Roll The complainant or the person who called the attention of this Court to the
of Attorneys by Ismael F. Mejia is hereby GRANTED. lawyer's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and generally has no interest
in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration
of justice.13 Thus, this Court may investigate charges against lawyers, regardless
CONJUANCO v PALMA Providing one's children with a comfortable life and of complainant's standing. In fact, it can do so motu proprio. Our ruling in Rayos-
good education does not render marriage a fait accompli. Leo J. Palma, Ombac v. Rayos  14 applies four-square, thus:ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υαl  lαÏ
respondent herein, may have provided well for his children but this ‰  lιbrαrÿ
accomplishment is not sufficient to wipe away the penalty for his transgression. x x x A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of
He ought to remember that before he became a father, he was a husband first. interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on
As such, he should have loved, respected and remained faithful to his wife. the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and
At bar is respondent's Motion to Vacate1 our Decision dated September 15, 2004 grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. 'This rule is premised on the
finding him guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is
and imposing upon him the penalty of disbarment from the practice of law. not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
In resolving the instant motion, a brief revisit of the facts is imperative. On June respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
22, 1982, respondent, despite his subsisting marriage with Elizabeth interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken
Hermosisima, married Maria Luisa Cojuangco, the 22-year old daughter of and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. 'They are undertaken for the
complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. This prompted the latter to file with this purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons
Court, on November 8, 1982, a complaint for disbarment against respondent. unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his
conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. In Cordova v.
and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may Cordova,23 we held that 'The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a
have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the
warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance,
of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
II - Due Process We also reiterate our ruling that respondent's conduct speaks of a clear case of
Neither do we find merit in respondent's claim that the IBP Commission on Bar betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence, thus:ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υαl  lαÏ
Discipline violated his right to due process when it considered the case submitted ‰  lιbrαrÿ
for resolution on January 24, 2002 without his direct testimony in affidavit form. x x x. It was respondent's closeness to the complainant's family as well as the
The records show that the case dragged on for three (3) years after the IBP latter's complete trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with
Commission on Bar Discipline resumed its investigation on October 19, 1998. Of Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainant's legal affairs only, he
the fifteen15 (15) settings from February 2, 1999 to January 24, 2002, respondent sneaked at the latter's back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in
had the hearing postponed for eight (8) times. the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of
Indisputably, it was respondent's failure to submit his 'direct testimony in affidavit complainant's resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant's office in
form that caused delay. Since the proceedings had been dragging on a lethargic order to marry the latter's daughter in Hong Kong. He did this without
course, the IBP Commissioner is correct in considering the case submitted for complainant's knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure
resolution. At this juncture, it must be stressed that the essence of due process in complainant that 'everything is legal. Clearly, respondent had crossed he limits of
administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a propriety and decency.
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are Indeed, we are not prepared to exonerate respondent or reduce the penalty we
given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of imposed on him as it will denigrate the standard of the law profession.
due process are sufficiently met.16 Here, respondent was given sufficient WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion to Vacate our Decision dated September 15,
opportunity to explain his side and adduce his evidence. Despite his sudden 2004 is hereby DENIED.
'flight into oblivion, the IBP Commissioner notified him of the proceedings. SO ORDERED.
Significantly, he was duly represented by a counsel who attended the hearings
and submitted manifestations and motions on his behalf, the latest of which is the
instant Motion to Vacate. In short, the active participation of his lawyer in every
stage of the proceedings rules out any badge of procedural deficiency therein. Of
course, we need not mention the fact that respondent was able to file with this
Court a motion to dismiss the complaint, as well as to confront and cross-
examine the complainant and his witness during the investigation in the OSG.
III - Restraining Order
The restraining order was anchored on the ground that the final outcome of Civil
Case No. Pq0401-P poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceedings.
It appears from complainant's allegation, which respondent does not deny, that
Civil Case No. Pq0401-P was dismissed without prejudice. 17 Necessarily, there
is no more prejudicial question to speak of.
IV - Laches
Respondent cannot find solace in the principle of laches. While it is true that
there was a hiatus or delay of 14 years before the IBP Commissioner resumed
the investigation, the same was pursuant to the said restraining order of
December 19, 1984.
V ' Finality of the Penalty Imposed
by the IBP-Board of Governors
The penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors
cannot attain finality. Section 12 of Rule 139-B provides:ςηαñrοblεš
νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ
Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.-
xxx
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that
the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it
shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which,
together with the whole record of the case shall forthwith be transmitted to
the Supreme Court for final action.
Clearly, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is merely recommendatory.
The 'power to recommend includes the power to give 'advice, exhortation or
indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character, not binding upon the
party to whom it is made.18 Necessarily, the 'final action on the resolution of the
IBP Board of Governors still lies with this Court. Obviously, respondent's
argument that we affirmed such resolution when we 'noted it is certainly
misplaced. In Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan ,19 we
held that the term 'noted means that the Court has merely taken cognizance of
the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation
or rendering a decision on the matter. It does not imply agreement or approval.
The power to disbar belongs to the Court alone.
VI - Good Faith
Respondent's argument that he was of the 'firm factual and legal conviction when
he declared before the Hong Kong authorities that he was a bachelor since his
first marriage is void and does not need judicial declaration of nullity cannot
exonerate him. In Terre v. Terre,20 the same defense was raised by respondent
lawyer whose disbarment was also sought. We held:ςηαñrοblεš  Î½Î¹r†υ
αl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ
x x x Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known
that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this Court
which holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally
free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first
marriage was null and void ab initio is essential. Even if we were to assume,
arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the
same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument,
his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the
result that his second marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in
character.
Before we write finis to this case, we find it necessary to stress certain points in
view of respondent's additional reason why he should be exonerated - that he
loves all his children and has always provided for them. He may have indeed
provided well for his children. But this accomplishment is not sufficient to show
his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession of law. It
has always been the duties of parents - e.g., to support, educate and instruct
their children according to right precepts and good example; and to give them
love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and spiritual
guidance.21 But what respondent forgot is that he has also duties to his wife. As a
husband, he is obliged to live with her; observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity; and render help and support.22 And most important of all, he is obliged
to remain faithful to her until death.
The undeniable truth is that respondent married Lisa while his marriage with
Elizabeth Hermosisima was still subsisting. Such act constitutes grossly immoral
conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Obviously, he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of