A.C. No. 10294 - MARYANNE MERRIAM B. GUEVARRA-CASTIL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EMELY REYES TRINIDAD.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, with such guidelines, the doctrine in Spouses Buffe and similar cases, which state that the Court has no jurisdiction to discipline, as member of the bar, government lawyers who committed acts or omissions involving their official duties, are thus abandoned. We now apply these guidelines and principles to the present case. To recap, Maryanne specifically alleged in her complaint the following: 21. Upon consultation with a counsel, I learned that Atty. Trinidad's actions are clearly against the Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01, which states, "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." [28] While it is mentioned that Atty. Trinidad is a police officer, and that she allegedly threatened to leverage her position to dissuade Maryanne from pursuing the complaint, that is not the principal act complained of. Instead, Maryanne complained of Atty. Trinidad's illicit affair with Orlando something which is totally unrelated to, and may be accomplished, even without Atty. Trinidad's position in the PNP. In other words, Atty. Trinidad was not acting as a police officer when she allegedly committed the deed. Assuming that these allegations are true, do they make Atty. Trinidad unfit to be a member of the legal profession? We answer in the positive. Thus, We hold that this Court has jurisdiction to resolve the present disbarment complaint. Atty. Trinidad's actions warrant the imposition of the penalty of disbarment The Court adopts the findings of the Commission, as affirmed by the Board, and sustains the imposition of the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Trinidad. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, 7.03 of the CPR state: Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Meanwhile, Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar ay be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied). In Hosoya v. Contado, [29] the Court held that to warrant the imposition of disbarment on the ground of immorality, the act