A.M. No. L-363 - JULY 1962 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. L-363July 31, 1962 In re: Diosdado Q. Gutierrez G.R. No. L-18412July 31, 1962 Jose Santos vs. Cecilia Lopez Vda. de Cerdenola, et al. G.R. No. L-18175July 31, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Sebastian Largo G.R. Nos. L-18099 and L-18136July 31, 1962 Mariano Corpus vs. Benjamin Padilla G.R. No. L-17716July 31, 1962 Luneta Motor Co. vs. A.D. Santos, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-17683July 31, 1962 William C. Pfleider vs. C. N. Hodges G.R. No. L-17608-09July 31, 1962 Victoriana Sagucio vs. Adriano Bulos G.R. No. L-17529July 31, 1962 Jose V. Neri vs. Librado C. Lim G.R. No. L-17483July 31, 1962 Jose Agbulos vs. Jose C. Alberto G.R. No. L-17441July 31, 1962 Welgo Dichoso, et al. vs. Laura Roxas, et al. G.R. No. L-17427July 31, 1962 Rodrigo Acosta vs. People of the Phil. G.R. No. L-17366July 31, 1962 Alfredo Frias, et al. vs. Santiago Esquivel, et al. G.R. No. L-17283July 31, 1962 Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-19597July 31, 1962 Cesar Climaco vs. Manuel P. Barcelona, et al. G.R. No. L-19440July 31, 1962 Cesar Climaco vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-19022July 31, 1962 Benjamin P. Palomique vs. Perfecto R. Palacio, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-18814July 31, 1962 Anacleto P. Navarro vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. L-18733July 31, 1962 Felipe B. Pareja vs. Amador E. Gomez, et al. G.R. No. L-17229July 31, 1962 Tomas Ty Tion, et al. vs. Marsman & Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-17175July 31, 1962 Ricardo M. Gutierrez vs. Lucia Milagros Barretto-Datu, et al. G.R. No. L-17165July 31, 1962 Emma R. Geniza, et al. vs. Henry Sy, et al. G.R. No. L-17083July 31, 1962 Teodorica Reinares vs. Jose Arrastia, et al. G.R. No. L-16968July 31, 1962 Philippine National Bank vs. Concepcion Mining Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-16946July 31, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo I. Ventura G.R. No. L-16917July 31, 1962 Plaridel Sotto vs. Quintillana Samson G.R. No. L-16306July 31, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Fausto Carlos G.R. No. L-16050July 31, 1962 Manuel Griñen vs. Filemon R. Consolacion, et al. G.R. No. L-15858July 31, 1962 Dy Lam Go vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-15749July 31, 1962 Josephine Cotton, et al. vs. Eugenio S. Baltao G.R. No. L-15498July 31, 1962 Lucas Roque, et al. vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-15241July 31, 1962 Soledad Tan vs. Carlos Dimayuga, et al. G.R. No. L-14990July 31, 1962 Florencia Piccio Vda. de Yusay, et al. vs. Lilia Poli Yusay-Gonzales G.R. No. L-14986July 31, 1962 Cornelio Amaro, et al. vs. Ambrosio Sumanguit G.R. No. L-14753July 31, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Custodio Regal, et al. G.R. No. L-14735July 31, 1962 Lao Teck Sing vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-14717July 31, 1962 Teresa Realty, Inc. vs. Carmen Preysler Vda. de Garriz G.R. No. L-14129July 31, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Manantan G.R. No. L-13717July 31, 1962 Koa Gui vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-12687July 31, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Emiterio Villanueva, et al. G.R. No. L-10431July 31, 1962 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. La Tondeña, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-18496July 30, 1962 Jose L. Gonzales vs. Secretary of Education, et al. G.R. No. L-17735July 30, 1962 Conrado Victorino, et al. vs. Primitivo Espiritu G.R. No. L-17508July 30, 1962 Romeo Almodiel vs. Ramon Blanco, et al. G.R. No. L-17295July 30, 1962 Ang Pue & Company, et al. vs. Secretary of Commerce and Industry G.R. No. L-17191July 30, 1962 Jose Perez Cardenas vs. Pedro Camus G.R. No. L-13654July 30, 1962 Provincial Treasurer of Negros Occidental vs. Jose Azcona, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-13045July 30, 1962 In re: Hao Su Siong Hao Su Siong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17024July 24, 1962 Gapan Farmer's Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Fe Parial, et al. G.R. No. L-17990July 24, 1962 Municipality of San Carlos, Pangasinan vs. Jesus F. Morfe, et al. G.R. No. L-16959July 24, 1962 In re: Clodualdo Vitug Donata Montemayor vs. Heirs of Eduardo D. Gutierrez G.R. No. L-16925July 24, 1962 Fabian Pugeda vs. Rafael Trias, et al. G.R. No. L-13341July 21, 1962 In re: Justino Dee Cu Justino O. Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17146July 20, 1962 In re: Kho Eng Poe Kho Eng Poe vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16176July 19, 1962 People of the Philippines vs. Ismael Lampitoc, et al. G.R. No. L-17865-6July 18, 1962 Price, Inc. vs. Manuel S. Camus G.R. No. L-17858-9July 18, 1962 Manuel S. Camus vs. Price, Inc. A.M. No. 512July 7, 1962 Esteban Degamo vs. Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. In re: Diosdado Q. Gutierrez Jose Santos vs. Cecilia Lopez Vda. de Cerdenola, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sebastian Largo Mariano Corpus vs. Benjamin Padilla Luneta Motor Co. vs. A.D. Santos, Inc., et al. William C. Pfleider vs. C. N. Hodges Victoriana Sagucio vs. Adriano Bulos Jose V. Neri vs. Librado C. Lim Jose Agbulos vs. Jose C. Alberto Welgo Dichoso, et al. vs. Laura Roxas, et al. Rodrigo Acosta vs. People of the Phil. Alfredo Frias, et al. vs. Santiago Esquivel, et al. Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Cesar Climaco vs. Manuel P. Barcelona, et al. Cesar Climaco vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. Benjamin P. Palomique vs. Perfecto R. Palacio, etc., et al. Anacleto P. Navarro vs. Director of Lands Felipe B. Pareja vs. Amador E. Gomez, et al. Tomas Ty Tion, et al. vs. Marsman & Company, Inc., et al. Ricardo M. Gutierrez vs. Lucia Milagros Barretto-Datu, et al. Emma R. Geniza, et al. vs. Henry Sy, et al. Teodorica Reinares vs. Jose Arrastia, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Concepcion Mining Company, Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo I. Ventura People of the Philippines vs. Fausto Carlos Manuel Griñen vs. Filemon R. Consolacion, et al. Dy Lam Go vs. Republic of the Philippines Josephine Cotton, et al. vs. Eugenio S. Baltao Lucas Roque, et al. vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. Soledad Tan vs. Carlos Dimayuga, et al. Florencia Piccio Vda. de Yusay, et al. vs. Lilia Poli Yusay-Gonzales Cornelio Amaro, et al. vs. Ambrosio Sumanguit People of the Philippines vs. Custodio Regal, et al. Lao Teck Sing vs. Republic of the Philippines Teresa Realty, Inc. vs. Carmen Preysler Vda. de Garriz People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Manantan Koa Gui vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Emiterio Villanueva, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. La Tondeña, Inc., et al. Jose L. Gonzales vs. Secretary of Education, et al. Conrado Victorino, et al. vs. Primitivo Espiritu Romeo Almodiel vs. Ramon Blanco, et al. Ang Pue & Company, et al. vs. Secretary of Commerce and Industry Jose Perez Cardenas vs. Pedro Camus Provincial Treasurer of Negros Occidental vs. Jose Azcona, etc., et al. In re: Hao Su Siong Hao Su Siong vs. Republic of the Philippines Gapan Farmer's Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Fe Parial, et al. Municipality of San Carlos, Pangasinan vs. Jesus F. Morfe, et al. In re: Clodualdo Vitug Donata Montemayor vs. Heirs of Eduardo D. Gutierrez Fabian Pugeda vs. Rafael Trias, et al. In re: Justino Dee Cu Justino O. Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Kho Eng Poe Kho Eng Poe vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Ismael Lampitoc, et al. Price, Inc. vs. Manuel S. Camus Manuel S. Camus vs. Price, Inc. Esteban Degamo vs. Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. L-363 July 31, 1962
IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTY. DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ,respondent.
Victoriano A. Savellano for complaint.
Nestor M. Andrada for respondent.
MAKALINTAL,J.:
Respondent Diosdado Q. Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar, admitted to it on October 5, 1945. In criminal case No. R-793 of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro he was convicted of the murder of Filemon Samaco, former municipal mayor of Calapan, and together with his co-conspirators was sentenced to the penalty of death. Upon review by this Court the judgment of conviction was affirmed on June 30, 1956 (G.R. No. L-17101), but the penalty was changed toreclusion perpetua.After serving a portion of the sentence respondent was granted a conditional pardon by the President on August 19, 1958. The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted "on condition that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines."
On October 9, 1958 the widow of the deceased Filemon Samaco, victim in the murder case, filed a verified complaint before this Court praying that respondent be removed from the roll of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127, section 5. Respondent presented his answer in due time, admitting the facts alleged by complainant regarding pardon in defense, on the authority of the decision of this Court in the case of In re Lontok, 43 Phil. 293.
Under section 5 of Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime insolving moral turpitude. Murder is, without doubt, such a crime. The term "moral turpitude" includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. In re Carlos S. Basa, 41 Phil. 275. As used in disbarment statutes, it means an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to the accepted rule of right and duty between man and man. State ex rel.Conklin v. Buckingham,84 P. 2nd 49; 5 Am. Jur. Sec. 279. pp. 428-429.
The only question to be resolved is whether or not the conditional pardon extended to respondent places him beyond the scope of the rule on disbarment aforecited. Reliance is placed by him squarely on the Lontok case. The respondent therein was convicted of bigamy and thereafter pardoned by the Governor-General. In a subsequent viction, this Court decided in his favor and held: "When proceedings to strike an attorney's name from the rolls the fact of a conviction for a felony ground for disbarment, it has been held that a pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney after the pardon has been granted."
It is our view that the ruling does not govern the question now before us. In making it the Court proceeded on the assumption that the pardon granted to respondent Lontok was absolute. This is implicit in theratio decidendiof the case, particularly in the citations to support it, namely. In Re Emmons, 29 Cal. App. 121;Scott vs. State, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 343; andEx parteGarland, 4 Wall, 380. Thus inScott vs. Statethe court said:
We are of opinion that after received an unconditional pardon the record of the felony conviction could no longer be used as a basis for the proceeding provided for in article 226. The record, when offered in evidence, was met with an unconditional pardon, and could not, therefore, properly be said to afford "proof of a conviction of any felony." Having been thus cancelled, all its force as a felony conviction was taken away. A pardon falling short of this would not be a pardon, according to the judicial construction which that act of executive grace was received.Ex parteGarland, 4 Wall, 344;Knote v. U.S., 95 U.S. 149, and cases there cited;Young v. Young,61 Tex. 191.
And the portion of the decision inEx parteGarland quoted with approval in the Lontok case is as follows:
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out the existence of guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. It granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities, consequent upon conviction, from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.
The pardon granted to respondent here is not absolute but conditional, and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term. It does not reach the offense itself, unlike that inEx parteGarland, which was "a full pardon and amnesty for all offense by him committed in connection with rebellion (civil war) against government of the United States."
The foregoing considerations rendered In re Lontok are inapplicable here. Respondent Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for murder without regard to the pardon he invokes in defense. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in hand, by taking advantage of his official position (respondent being municipal mayor at the time) and with the use of motor vehicle. People vs. Diosdado Gutierrez,supra.The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged from the profession.
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk of suspension or removal. As stated inEx parteWall, 107 U.S. 263, 27 Law ed., 552, 556: "Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 127, Section 5, and considering the nature of the crime for which respondent Diosdado Q. Gutierrez has been convicted, he is ordered disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of lawyers.
Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.