OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2003, June 02, 2003

 For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted heremider
is the decision of the Couit’s First Division in. Administrative Case
No. 354S entitled “Jose A. Rivera vs. Atty. Napoleon Corral” dated July
4, 2002, to wit:

“On September 1, 1990, ^[1]Jose A Rivera, instituted a Complaint for Disbarment^[2] charging. Atty. Napoleon Corral with Malpractice and Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Philippine Bar. x x x

x x x

Respondent’s claim that he was not afforded due process deserves’
scant consideration. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity
to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.^[8] In fact –

‘…a respondent in an administrative proceeding is not entitled to
be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating
committee created to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision based on evidence made
of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the
evidence presented against him during the hearings or the investigating
committee.^‘[9]

x x x

The quintessence of due process is simply that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity
to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side and to adduce any evidence he may have
in support of his defense.^[11]
Entrenched is the rule that due process doe not necessarily mean or
require a hearing but simply a reasonable opportunity or a right to be
heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings and opportunity to
explains one’s side.^[12] Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.^[13]

In his report, the Investigating Commissioner pointed out that the
correction introduced by respondent was made not to reflect the truth
but to mislead the trial court into believing that the notice of appeal
was filed within the reglementary period. The Decision rendered in Civil
Case No. 17473 was duly received by a certain Annaliza Superio, the
secretary of respondent, on February 22, 1990. Respondent filed the
Notice of Appeal on March 13, 1990 which was clearly out of time. To
extricate himself from such predicament, respondent altered the date
when he allegedly received the Decision from February 23, 1990 to
February 29, 1990 in the calendar, he sought to change the date again to
February 28, 19.90 by means of a “reply to Plaintiffs Manifestation.”

x x x’

The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not
only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers but also to
safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the
public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal
profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer’s’ oath have
proven them unfit to continue discharging the’ trust reposed in them as
members of the bar.^[15] A
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court.^[16]

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a
member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney on the following grounds, to wit: 1] deceit; 2] malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office; 3] grossly immoral conduct; 4]
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5] violation of the
lawyer’s oath; 6] willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior
court; and 7] willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without
authority.

While the prevailing facts of the case do not warrant so severe a
penalty as disbarment, the inherent power of the Court to discipline an
errant member of the Bar must, nonetheless, be exercised it can not be
denied that respondent has violated his solemn oath as a lawyer not to
engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct.17

The relevant rules to the case at bar are Rules 1.01 and Rule 19.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.01 states in no
uncertain terms that: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.” More specifically, Rule 19.01 mandates
that “a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded aiminal
charges to obtain improper advantage in any case or proceeding.”

The Court “can not overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this
by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the
courts and to his clients.^[18] Along the same vein, in Ong v. Aity. Elpidio D. Unto,^[19]
the Court ruled that “The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin
lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play
and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be
disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional
or private capacity.^[20] Public
confidence in the law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsive aid
improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act
and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.^[21]

By altering the material dates to make it appear that the Notice of
Appeal was timely filed, respondent committed an act .of dishonesty.
Under pertinent rules,^[22]
dishonesty constitutes grave misconduct upon which the Court, in a
recent case, ” imposed a one-year suspension on respondent therein for
inserting in the records of the case a certification of non-forum
shopping and making it appear that the same was already part of such
records at the time the complaint was filed. A one-year suspension was
similarly imposed on respondent in Reyes v. Atty. Rolando Javier24 for
deceiving his client into believing that he filed the petition on time
when in fact it was filed on a much later date. It should be stressed
that brazenly resorting to such a legal subterfuge to mislead the court
and to cover up for his failings toward his client is not only a
disgraceful indictment on respondent’s moral fiber and personal fitness
to his calling as a lawyer. It is also an embarrassment to his brethren
in the Bar. Such misconduct warrants a similar penalty for the Court can
not tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair name of an
honorable profession.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent. Atty. Napoleon
Corral is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) year and
STERNLY. WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.

x x x”

Copy of this resolution was received by respondent on November 18, 2002.

June 2, 2003.

^[2] Ibid, p. 1-3.

^[8] Vda. de Dela Cruz vs.
Abille, 352 SCRA691, 698 (2001), citing Sunsent View Condominium Corp.
v. NLRC, 228 SCRA, 466, 472 (1993), citing Bautista v. Secretary of
Labor, 196 SCRA 470 (1991)

^[9] Perfianco v. Mora, 322 SCRA 439, 449 (2000), citing Ruiz v. Drilon, 209 SCRA 695 (1992)

^[11] PAL vs. NLRC, 337 SCRA 286 (2000), Orola vs. Alovera, 335 SCRA 609 (2000)

^[12] Aparente, Sr. vs.
NLRC, 331 SCRA 82, 89-90 (2000), citing National Semiconductor (HK)
Distribution Ltd. v. NLRC 291 SCRA 348, 354 (1998); Ramoran v. Jardine
CMG Life Insurance Company, 326 SCRA 209, 220 (2000)

^[13] Gacutana-Fraile v. Domingo, 348 SCRA 414 (2000), citing Alba v. Niforreda, 254 SCRA

^[15] Sevilla v. Salubre, 348 SCRA592,599 (2000)

^[16] Calub v. Suller, 323 SCRA 556, 560 (2000)

^[17] Alitagtag v. Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia, A. C. No. 4738, 6 February 2002, citing Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility

^[18] Reyes v. Atty. Rolando Javier, A. C. No. 5574, 1 February 2002.

^[19] A. C. No. 2417, February 2002.

^[20] Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon., 337 SCRA 622, 628 (2000)

^[21] Id., p. 629

^[22] Memorandum circular No. 30, Series of 1989, or the Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Administrative Cases

^[23] Santos v. Joyce Trinidad Arlegui-Hernandez, et al., 22 February 2002

^[24] See note no. 13