Time and again, the Supreme Court (SC) has reminded that membership in the Bar, or to be a lawyer, is a privilege that is burdened with many conditions. Good moral character and the appearance of living in accordance with societal standards are expected. Being an officer of the court, lawyers must not be only of good moral character, but must also be seen to be leading lives in accordance with the highest standards of the community.
This principle was discussed in detail in the SC’s recent decision in Moya vs Oreta (AC 13082, 16 November 2021). In that case, the High Court was confronted with a disbarment case filed by complainant against respondent on the ground of sexual, physical, psychological and economic abuse, among other charges.
In disbarment cases, the complainant bears the burden of proof to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his/her complaint through substantial evidence. The court found that complainant was able to prove her allegations of physical violence when she detailed the incidents in her Reply-Affidavit. She narrated how she was hurt and hit by respondent, resulting in bruises. These bruises were seen by complainant’s kids, friends and relatives. In another incident, respondent slapped complainant.
To prevent respondent from further laying his hand on her, complainant and her children applied for and were granted a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) — a remedy allowed under Republic Act (RA) 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act. The court noted that a BPO is not ministerial in nature. It is issued only after the punong barangay is convinced that an imminent danger of violence against the woman and her children exists or is about to occur.
Complainant also initiated before the trial court a petition for issuance of a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) under RA 9262. The trial court found that the physical abuse as alleged did happen, and therefore granted the issuance of a PPO — making permanent the Temporary Protection Order it had initially issued.
While the criminal complaint for violation of RA 9262 against respondent was dismissed, the court found that administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. There need not be a predicate crime for disciplinary action to be imposed upon erring lawyers. After all, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, or a class of their own. They are neither purely civil or criminal; neither do they involve a trial of an action, but it is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.
In its disposition, the court reminded that lawyers and judges should be at the forefront in combatting domestic abuse. The court imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment on respondent for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for laying a hand not only on complainant but her children, too — making the statement that, indeed, the legal profession is simply no place for abusers.
The Daily Tribune
