A.C. No. 407 August 15, 1967
IN RE - ATTORNEY JOSE AVANCEÑA, Respondent.
J. Gonzales and Orense for respondent.
ANGELES, J.:chanrobles virtual law library
On January 12, 1951, the Supreme Court entered a resolution as follows:
Jose Avanceña, a member of the Bar, was charged with falsification of public document before the Court of First Instance of Manila, in criminal case No. 10220. After trial, he was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two years to six years of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The trial court also found that he took advantage of the law profession in committing the crime of falsification of public document to defraud his clients. A copy of the decision was sent to the Supreme Court for whatever the action it may deem appropriate to take in the premises. Conformably thereto, the Supreme Court adopted the resolution hereinabove quoted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
From the decision of the lower court, Jose Avanceña appealed to the Court of Appeals. On February 28, 1962, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
On a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, the latter Court, on June 13, 1962, dismissed the petition for lack of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
On January 21, 1963, Jose Avanceña was committed to prison at the National Penitentiary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
On September 25, 1963, the President of the Philippines extended conditional pardon to Jose Avanceña.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
On October 1, 1963, Jose Avanceña was discharged from confinement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In the decision of the trial court, the following is said:
In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals said:
There can, therefore, be no doubt, that Jose Avanceña has committed the crime of falsification of public document against his clients with grave abuse of confidence, having been found guilty thereof by final judgment of competent jurisdiction. His acts amount to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office as an attorney, which constitute grounds for removal from office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, not to mention conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The fact that the respondent was extended conditional pardon by the Chief Executive is of no moment. Such conditional pardon merely partially relieved him of the penal consequences of his act, but did not operate as a bar to his disbarment, especially so when he is being disbarred on the ground of professional misconduct for which he had been convicted by final judgment. (Cf. In re Lontok, 43 Phil. 293.)chanrobles virtual law library
Wherefore, judgment is hereby entered declaring Jose Avanceña disbarred from the practice of law, and striking his name from the roll of attorneys.
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Search for www.chanrobles.com
|Copyright © ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions|
ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™