A.C. No. 8560 - CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMON F. NIEVA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months. In view of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, [19] the IBP Board referred the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for study, evaluation, and submission of an Executive Summary to the IBP Board. [20] In the Director's Report [21] dated July 8, 2014, the IBP-CBD National Director recommended that the current IBP Board adhere to the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner as it is supported by the evidence on record; on the other hand, the reversal made by the previous IBP Board is bereft of any factual and legal bases, and should therefore, be set aside. In this light, the current IBP Board issued a Resolution [22] dated August 10, 2014 setting aside the previous IBP Board's Resolution, and accordingly, dismissed the administrative complaint against respondent. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court's Ruling Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides: CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The provision instructs that "[a]s officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing." [23] In similar light, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR states: CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. x x x x 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. Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is required to possess. It may be defined as "what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality." [24] Such requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes, namely: ( a ) to protect the public; ( b ) to protect the public image of lawyers; ( c ) to protect prospective clients; and ( d ) to protect errant lawyers from themselves. [25] In Valdez v. Dabon , [26] the Court emphasized that a lawyer's continued possession of good moral character is a requisite condition to remain a member of the Bar, viz .: Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to ret