Case Digest: JUAN DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ

JUAN DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ

(2007)

The primary duty of lawyers is to be well-informed of the existing laws, o keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments, and jurisprudence, and be conversant with basic legal principles.

Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the Municipal Government to build a high rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released due to the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the Municipal Engineers office, claiming that the building impedes the airspace of their property which is adjacent to the Dulalia’s property. Juan Dulalia (Juan) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz (Cruz) for immoral conduct.

Juan also claimed that Cruz’s illicit relationship with a woman while still married is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith, claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:

Cruz’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as “ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”

Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes “conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.” Gross immoral conduct on the other hand must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.

The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for one year.