A.C. No. 13475 [Formerly CBD 16-5224] - JUDY GABAWAN DELA CRUZ, RODOLF JOHN G. DELA CRUZ, AND RODOLF JAMES DELA CRUZ, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. GLEN ERIC PERALTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Report and Recommendation dated 16 January 2020 is APPROVED and ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION on the recommended penalty from SUSPENSION from the practice of law for three (3) years to DISBARMENT . [15] (Emphasis and italics in the original.) The IBP Board of Governors explained that based on the statements of Gitalan and the actuations of respondent after receiving a copy of the Motion for Execution, it was convinced that respondent indeed acted dishonestly under the circumstances, and is thus guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the CPR. [16] The IBP Board of Governors recommended the penalty of disbarment, finding the penalty of suspension to not be commensurate to the gravity of the offenses committed by respondent, thus: Indeed, the actuations of respondent ([1] in keeping for himself the proceeds of the check in the amount of PhP213,750.00 entrusted to him by his client for the payment of the latter's judgment obligation to herein complainants, and [2] in covering up his nefarious act by forging the signature of the payee and by abusing his position as a Notary Public), respondent has shown his unfitness to practice law. x x x x In this case, respondent's deceitful and illegal conduct was exarcebated by the fact that he did all those in relation to a case that was pending execution before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Pagadian City, Branch 2 and that he attempted to hide his misdeeds during the hearing of the Motion for Execution dated October 10, 2014. He, thus, violated as well Canon 10... x x x x Finally, respondent committed fraud against the IBP by submitting the Affidavit of his secretary, the contents of which were clearly fabricated in his favor. It should be noted that this defense of the respondent of passing the blame on his secretary was raised for the first time in his Answer to the instant Complaint and, hence, was a mere afterthought. [17] Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [18] but the IBP Board of Governors denied the same in its Resolution [19] dated 22 January 2022. Issues For the Court's resolution are: (1) whether respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR; and (2) whether disbarment is the appropriate penalty under the circumstances. Ruling of the Court The Court adopts the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors. Furthermore, the Court sustains the IBP Board of Governor's recommendation of imposing the penalty of disbarment against respondent. Complainants substantially proved respondent's violations of his Lawyer's Oath and the CPR In disbarment and suspension proceedings against lawyers, the Court will not hesitate to impose disciplinary sanctions on lawyers who are found to have violated their Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. At the same time, the Court will also not falter to extend its protective arm to lawyers if the accusations against them are not