TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that a lawyer previously disbarred cannot be disbarred again for a subsequent offense. In Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, the Court found Atty. Mas guilty of extorting money from litigants, an act warranting disbarment. However, because Atty. Mas was already disbarred in a prior case (Stemmerik v. Mas), the Court could not impose a second disbarment. Instead, it recorded the penalty in his file and declared him ineligible for judicial clemency, underscoring that while double disbarment is not possible, repeated misconduct severely diminishes any chance of reinstatement. This decision reinforces the principle that disbarment is a singular, ultimate penalty, but subsequent offenses by a disbarred lawyer are still documented and considered for future clemency petitions.

When Dishonesty Compounds Disbarment: The Case of Atty. Mas’s Second Offense

This case revolves around a disbarment complaint filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite against Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor detailed to Cavite. The অভিযোগ stemmed from allegations that Atty. Mas extorted PHP 58,000 from Anabelle Sarte Gaña, Lauro Sarte, and Elvira Shibuya, who were complainants in an estafa case assigned to him for preliminary investigation. Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco initiated the complaint after receiving a text message detailing the alleged extortion. The complainants, Sarte and Gaña, executed a Complaint-Affidavit stating that Atty. Mas misrepresented docket fees, falsely promised a favorable resolution, and instructed them to pay him directly, outside of official channels. This incident occurred while Atty. Mas was already facing prior disbarment proceedings, ultimately decided in Stemmerik v. Mas.

Despite being ordered by the Supreme Court to comment on the disbarment petition, Atty. Mas failed to respond, and attempts to locate him proved futile. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was even enlisted to find him, but Atty. Mas had seemingly disappeared, failing to update his address with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Consequently, the case was referred to the IBP for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Mas liable for deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty, recommending disbarment. However, noting his prior disbarment in A.C. No. 8010, the Commissioner initially recommended dismissal for being moot. The IBP Board of Governors modified this recommendation, agreeing with the finding of guilt but recommending disbarment should his prior disbarment be lifted, effectively recording the current offense for future consideration.

The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP’s factual findings, emphasizing that Atty. Mas was indeed guilty of misconduct. The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege conditioned on maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct. Misconduct, especially when it involves corruption and dishonesty, strikes at the core of the legal profession’s integrity. The Court defined misconduct, dishonesty, and corruption, drawing from jurisprudence and the newly enacted Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The CPRA Canon II, Section 1 explicitly states, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Atty. Mas’s actions clearly violated this canon, along with his oath as a lawyer and prosecutor.

However, the crucial legal question was the appropriate penalty given Atty. Mas’s existing disbarment. The Court referenced Section 42 of the CPRA, which addresses penalties for lawyers previously disbarred:

SECTION 42. Penalty When the Respondent Has Been Previously Disbarred. – When the respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the disbarred lawyer to return the money or property to the client, when proper. If the new charge deserves the penalty of a disbarment or suspension from the practice of law, it shall not be imposed but the penalty shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant or other office designated for the purpose. In the event that the disbarred lawyer applies for judicial clemency, the penalty so recorded shall be considered in the resolution of the same.

Building on this, the Supreme Court clarified that while it cannot impose a second disbarment, the gravity of Atty. Mas’s repeated misconduct cannot be ignored. Referencing Punla. v. Maravilla-Ona and Contreras v. Venida, the Court underscored the principle against double disbarment, stating, “once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law.” Despite the inability to disbar him again, the Court explicitly declared Atty. Mas ineligible for judicial clemency due to his recidivism and ordered him to return the extorted PHP 58,000 with legal interest. This decision serves as a firm stance against unethical conduct, even by those already disbarred, ensuring that such actions are documented and will severely hinder any future attempts at reinstatement.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF CAVITE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 8219, August 29, 2023