Re: SC Decision in G.R. No. 161455 vs. Atty. Pactolin

A lawyer convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude — such as falsification of a public document — may be disbarred from the practice of law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and the Court need not review the judgment of conviction once it has become final and executory.

Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin was a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental. Mario R. Ferraren was a city council member of Ozamis City designated as Officer-in-Charge while Mayor Benjamin A. Fuentes was away. The dispute originated from a ₱10,000 financial assistance request by Elmer Abastillas, playing coach of the Ozamis City volleyball team, which Mayor Fuentes approved and forwarded to the City Treasurer for processing. Atty. Pactolin obtained a photocopy of Abastillas' letter and used it to file a complaint against Ferraren for alleged illegal disbursement of public funds, attaching what he claimed was a falsified version showing Ferraren, rather than Mayor Fuentes, as the approving official.

In May 1996, Elmer Abastillas, the playing coach of the Ozamis City volleyball team, wrote Mayor Benjamin A. Fuentes of Ozamis City requesting financial assistance for his team. Mayor Fuentes approved the request, sent Abastillas' letter to the City Treasurer for processing, and designated Mario R. Ferraren, a city council member, as Officer-in-Charge of the city while he was away. Abastillas eventually received the ₱10,000.00 assistance for his volleyball team.

Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, then a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental, obtained a photocopy of Abastillas' letter. Using it, he filed on June 24, 1996 a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman-Mindanao against Ferraren for alleged illegal disbursement of ₱10,000.00 in public funds. Atty. Pactolin attached to the complaint a copy of what he claimed was a falsified letter of Abastillas, which showed that it was Ferraren, not Mayor Fuentes, who approved the disbursement.

Aggrieved, Ferraren filed a complaint against Atty. Pactolin with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 25665 for falsification of a public document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. On November 12, 2003, the Sandiganbayan found Atty. Pactolin guilty, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of prision correccional as maximum, plus accessory penalties and a fine of ₱5,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Atty. Pactolin appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction on May 20, 2008.

The Supreme Court treated the matter as an administrative complaint under Rule 139-B and referred it to the IBP for appropriate action. During the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, complainant Ferraren neither appeared nor submitted any pleading. On October 9, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XIX-2010-632, adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation that the case be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court, however, found that the conviction by final judgment for falsification — a crime involving moral turpitude — warranted disbarment.

• Reiteration of Defenses in the Falsification Case: Respondent argued that the Court glossed over the facts, that its decision and referral to the IBP was "factually infirmed," contained "factual exaggerations and patently erroneous observation," and was "too adventurous."
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Through the IBP proceedings, respondent maintained the defenses he raised before the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court in the falsification case, effectively contesting the factual basis for his conviction.

• Disbarment for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude: Whether Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification.

• Disbarment for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude: Yes. Conviction by final judgment of falsification of a public document — a crime involving moral turpitude — constitutes sufficient ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

• Disbarment for Crime Involving Moral Turpitude: The Court's decision affirming Atty. Pactolin's conviction had long become final and executory. Under the doctrine established in In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo, the Court is no longer called upon to review a judgment of conviction that has become final. The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's finding that the copy of Abastillas' letter which Atty. Pactolin attached to his complaint was spurious, and absent any satisfactory explanation for his possession and use of the forged document, he was the forger. Falsification of a public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and therefore involves moral turpitude, which is expressly enumerated as a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138. While disbarment is imposed with great caution as the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, the Court has consistently pronounced that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Atty. Pactolin's conduct — including the fact that he had not yet served his sentence despite the indubitable establishment of his culpability — exacerbated his offense and demonstrated that he fell short of the exacting standards expected of a member of the bar.

• Crime Involving Moral Turpitude as Ground for Disbarment — Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for removal or suspension from the practice of law. Moral turpitude includes everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals, involving an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties a person owes to fellowmen or society in general. The crime of falsification of a public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and therefore involves moral turpitude. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that Atty. Pactolin's final conviction for falsification warranted his disbarment.

• Finality of Conviction Precludes Review in Disbarment Proceedings — In disbarment cases predicated on a prior criminal conviction, the Court is no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction once it has become final and executory. The review of the conviction no longer rests upon the Court. This doctrine was drawn from In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo and applied to foreclose Atty. Pactolin's attempts to re-litigate the factual basis of his conviction.

• Disbarment Imposed with Great Caution — Disbarment, being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Notwithstanding this caution, the Court held that conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude meets the threshold for disbarment.

• "This case resolves the question of whether or not the conviction of a lawyer for a crime involving moral turpitude constitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment from the practice of law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court." — This is the opening statement framing the sole issue of the case, articulating the precise legal question presented.

• "This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude." — This passage establishes the classification of falsification as a crime involving moral turpitude, the controlling determination that triggers disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138.

• "In disbarment cases, it is no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction which has become final. The review of the conviction no longer rests upon this Court." — This articulates the doctrine that a final conviction need not be re-examined in subsequent disbarment proceedings, precluding re-litigation of factual issues already adjudicated.

• Pactolin vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA 136 — The prior Supreme Court decision affirming Atty. Pactolin's conviction for falsification, which became the basis for the disbarment proceedings. The Court relied on its finding that the document Atty. Pactolin used was spurious and that, absent satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and using a forged document is the forger.

• In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo, 203 Phil. 79 (1982) — Controlling precedent establishing that in disbarment cases based on a prior conviction, the Court need not review a judgment of conviction that has become final. Applied to foreclose Atty. Pactolin's attempts to re-litigate factual issues.

• Barrios vs. Martinez, 485 Phil. 1 (2004) — Cited for the definition of moral turpitude and for the proposition that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.

• Yu vs. Palaña, A.C. No. 7747, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 21 — Cited for the principle that disbarment is exercised with great caution and imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a lawyer, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court applied this provision by holding that Atty. Pactolin's final conviction for falsification — a crime involving moral turpitude — fell squarely within the enumerated grounds, warranting his disbarment.

• Article 172, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes falsification of a public document. Atty. Pactolin was convicted under this provision by the Sandiganbayan, and the Supreme Court affirmed, classifying the offense as one involving moral turpitude.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.