ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALES, CLAIMING TO BE AND ACTING AS TANODBAYAN­ OMBUDSMAN UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, …

In October, 1988, We suspended respondent Raul M. Gonzales from
the practice of law for an indefinite period. In denying his Motion for Reconsideration, We said that “the
indefiniteness of the respondent’s suspension, far from being ‘cruel’ or
‘degrading’ or ‘inhuman,’ has the effect of placing, as it were, the key to the
restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving
respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his contempt and
misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance
and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting
standards of conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and the
officer of the courts.”^[1]

After more than four (4) years from his suspension, on January
11, 1993, to be exact, respondent Raul M. Gonzales filed ex-parte Motion^[2]
to lift his suspension from the practice of law, alleging the following:

1. that respondent gave free legal aid services
to the poor and needy of Zambales and Iloilo, by paying lawyers to do the same
as he could not personally represent said clients by reason of his suspension;

2. that during his years of suspension, he has
pursued civic work, especially for the poor and displaced people in Zambales,
during the height of Mt. Pinatubo eruption;

3. that he had participated in the Third
International Dialog on the Transition to Global Society, at Landegg Academy in
Wienacht, Switzerland and brought honor to the country by delivering a paper
entitled, “The Meaning of Justice” cited by Mr. Justice Anthony
Kennedy of the US Supreme Court as “one of the better papers presented and
discussed at the conference;”

4. that respondent has a
long record in the service of human rights and the Rule of Law, especially
during the Martial Law years;

5. respondent pleads for his reinstatement to
the practice of law because his suspension on for 51 months has been the
longest in Philippine legal annals;

6. respondent states his profound regrets for
the inconvenience which he has caused to the Court and to some of its members
but he wishes to assure that he did not act with malice after thought, much
less with a desire to inflict harm on the Tribunal;

7. respondent reiterates very sincerely his
respect to the institution which is the Supreme Court as he reiterates his oath
to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well as to the Courts as to the clients
and finally restating his fealty to the institution which is the Supreme Court
which he has always respected as the ultimate bulwark of freedom, of the Rule
of Law, of human rights and of equity and justice.

In a Resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 9, 1993, We
ordered petitioner Zaldivar to file his Comment. Up to the present time, however, or after the lapse of
the ten (10) day period within which to file the same, We have not yet received
the Comment of petitioner.

The Chief Justice, who was one of the Members of the Court
contemned by the respondent, suggests that We look benignly on the motion. We agree that this is not a court of
vengeance but of justice. The
respondent’s contrition, so noticeably absent in his earlier pleadings, has washed
clean the offense of his disrespect. His remorse has softened his arrogance and made up for his misconduct.

We believe that respondent Raul M. Gonzales’ suspension from the
practice of law for more than four (4) years has given him ample time and
opportunity to amend his erring ways, rehabilitate himself, and thus, prove
himself worthy once again to enjoy the privileges of membership of the Bar.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

For the proper guidance of respondent Raul M. Gonzales, We
reiterate a time-honored rule that the practice of law is a privilege burdened
with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and
faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions
required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying
the privilege to practice law. The
Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary
power over attorneys. This authority to
discipline its members is not only a right, but a bounden duty as well. The Court cannot, and will not, tolerate any
outbursts from its members without running the risk of disorder, chaos and
anarchy in the administration of justice. That is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members
“not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but
for the maintenance of its supreme importance.”^[3]

Like the prodigal son in the Biblical story, respondent Raul M.
Gonzales comes before Us repentant. The
passage of years has indeed the effect of making people wiser and humbler, as
it has to respondent Raul M. Gonzales. We are convinced of his sincerity to “reiterate his oath to conduct
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, x x
x and (to) restat (e) his fealty to the institution which is the Supreme Court
x x x.”^[4]

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in that the suspension of
respondent Raul M. Gonzales from the practice of law is hereby LIFTED. This resolution is immediately
executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan and Hon. Raul M.
Gonzales, etc.; Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. Hon. Raul M. Gonzales, etc.;
G.R. Nos. 79690-707, G.R. No.
80578, February 1, 1989, Rollo, p. 424.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 436.

^[3]
1, Cannons
of Professional
Ethics.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 796.