EN
BANC
ENRIQUE A.
ZALDIVAR,
Petitioner,
G. R. Nos. 79690-707
April 7, 1993
-versus-
HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN
and HON. RAUL M. GONZALES,
claiming to be and acting as
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under
the 1987 Constitution,
Respondents.
_____________________________
ENRIQUE
A. ZALDIVAR,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 80578
April 7, 1993
-versus-
HON.
RAUL M. GONZALES,
claiming to be and acting
as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman
under the 1987 Constitution,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
CAMPOS, JR., J.:
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 and 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 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
Accordingly, the
motion is granted.cralaw:red
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 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 bouden 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; and [to] restat[e] his fealty to the institution which is
the
Supreme Court."[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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla,
Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo,
Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes
[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, Canons of Professional Ethics.
[4]
Rollo, p. 796. |