Roberto Soriano vs. Atty. Manuel Dizon AC 6792 January 25, 2006 FACTS: Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the influence of liquor when along Abanao Street, Baguio City, a taxi driver overtook him. Incensed, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver, and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano forced open his door, causing Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to help Dizon get up, but the latter was about to punch him so Soriano punched Dizon first to fend off an impending attack. Soriano prevented another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to his car and got his revolver with the handle wrapped in a handkerchief. As Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up from the pavement, Dizon fired and shot him. Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and the latter merely pushed him out and sped off. The bullet hit Soriano’s neck and lacerated his carotid artery. According to the doctors who treated him, he would have died if not for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained spinal cord injury causing the left side of his body to be paralyzed, disabling him for his job as a taxi driver. Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide but was allowed probation, conditioned on payment of civil liabilities. However, four years after judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil obligation. Soriano filed complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for Dizon’s disbarment. The Commissioner of the CBD recommended that respondent be disbarred for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for violating Rule. 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the CBD and sent their resolution to the Supreme Court for review. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. 2. Whether or not Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his disbarment. HELD: 1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. The court defined moral turpitude as “everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” Moral turpitude was shown when Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for no justifiable reason. His act definitely did not constitute self-defense. It was he who was the aggressor because he first tried to punch Soriano. The latter was merely defending himself when he counterpunched Dizon. Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with treachery when he shot Soriano when the latter was not in a position to defend himself. Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up, when he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in handkerchief in order not to leave fingerprints on the gun used. Dizon’s violent reaction to a simple traffic incident indicated his skewed morals. 2. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Dizon failed to obey the laws of the land through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to respect legal processes through his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, the condition for his probation. Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Dizon’s violation was exhibited when he tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed, he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him to get a referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him. According to the three doctors who examined Dizon, his injuries were so minor that his allegation was so improbable.
The court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly showed his unfitness to continue as a member of the bar. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege demanding a high degree of good moral character, which is not only a condition precedent to admission, but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law. While the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when any lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.
