SC disbars lawyer for abusing ‘Atty’ title

- Advertisement -

THE Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a previously suspended prosecutor for impugning the integrity of justices and hurling invectives and insults at the Bar Confidant.

In a 16-page per curiam decision promulgated on February 21, 2023, but only made public recently, the High Court disbarred lawyer Perla Ramirez for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The SC also ordered that Ramirez’s name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys “effective immediately.”

- Advertisement -

Ramirez’s disbarment is based on a complaint filed in 2007 by Aurora Ladim, Angelito Ardiente, and Danilo Dela Cruz — who are employees of the Lirio Apartments Condominium in Makati City where the lawyer resided.

The petitioners complained about Ramirez’s unruly and offensive behavior towards residents and employees of the condominium during numerous occasions from 1990 to 2007.

In a resolution dated July 30, 2014, the High Court found Ramirez liable for violation of Canon 7.03 of the CPR, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law and from behaving in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life.

She was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

When Ramirez requested for the lifting of her suspension in 2016, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), through Bar Confidant Ma. Cristina Layusa, advised her to file the necessary motion and submit a sworn statement that she did not practice law during the period of her suspension.

Instead of complying, Ramirez questioned the Bar Confidant’s authority and claimed that such requirements did not apply to her.

Because of Ramirez’s refusal to file the required document, the OBC recommended that her request be denied. This was subsequently adopted by the High Court in its August 1, 2016 resolution. The court ruled the suspension will stay until she has complied with the submission of the required sworn statement and the necessary certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the trial courts.

On March 15, 2017, Ramirez again went to the OBC to follow-up on the status of her request on the lifting of her suspension order.

However, after Layusa explained to her the dispositive portion of the August 2016 resolution, the latter started berating the Bar Confidant and hurled offensive words at her.

She also called Layusa a “disgrace to the legal profession” and told her to use her brains considering that she is just a “lowly clerk.”

Ramirez also maligned the SC justices, uttering at one point, according to court records, “Are those justices passers under RA 1080?” referring to Republic Act 1080 or the Act Declaring Bar and Board Examinations as Civil Service Examinations.

The SC said Ramirez’s outbursts right inside the OBC were witnessed by OBC personnel and a member of the Court’s Security Division.

Following the incident, the SC in a resolution dated Apr.19, 2017 required Ramirez to explain her side, but she failed to comply.

When the SC reiterated its order for Ramirez to file her comment, she submitted instead a letter requesting for the lifting of her suspension.

The SC then referred the case to the OBC, which recommended that Ramirez’s request for lifting of suspension order be denied, and that she be disbarred.

In its ruling, the SC adopted the OBC’s recommendation and ordered the disbarment of Ramirez.

“On this point, this Court underscores that a lawyer, as an officer of the Court, should uphold the dignity and authority of the Court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes. For failing to observe the requirements aforesaid, respondent’s prayer to lift her suspension is denied,” the SC ruled, adding that Ramirez’s actions warrant the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

- Advertisement -spot_img

“Atty. Ramirez maligned not only officers of this Court but the Court itself as an institution with her erratic outbursts in the confines of this office. Evidently, Atty. Ramirez had shown a penchant for being arrogant and disrespectful in her dealings, whether in her private or professional life, pompously using her title ‘Atty’ as a license to belittle and mock others who do not follow her suit. To the mind of this Court, her actions do not merit judicial empathy… the practice of law is not a right, but a mere privilege which is subject to the inherent regulatory power of this Court,” the SC said.

The Court, in holding Ramirez liable, said it considered her position and her previous violation as aggravating factors.

It likewise underscored the canons governing the conduct of lawyers towards the legal profession, among which are Canon 7, which states that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar; Canon 8, which states that a lawyer shall conduct oneself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards one’s professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel; and Canon 11, which states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

“Thus, it is imperative for lawyers to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity not only upon admission to the Bar, but also throughout their career in order to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession,” stressed the Court.

The Court also added that “lawyers should always guard their language because any careless remark can promote distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people’s confidence in the legal profession, and erode public respect for it.”

Lastly, the Court explained the purpose of disbarment as a penalty “is not to punish the individual Attorney himself or herself, but rather to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the Court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the Court.”

It also said that disbarment is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of undesirable members, “especially those who have disregarded their oath and have proved to be unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar, just like Ramirez in this case.”

Last June, the SC also disbarred lawyer Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon for uttering “misogynistic, sexist, abusive and intemperate language,” against investigative journalist Raissa Robles in December 2021.

Author

- Advertisement -
Previous article
Next article

Share post: