Scribd
Upload
261 views

In Re Ricafort Digest

Petitioner, an attorney, committed multiple breaches of fiduciary duty resulting in indefinite suspension and disbarment on multiple occasions. He filed a petition for clemency after only 3 years and 9 months since his most recent disbarment, less than the 5-year minimum required by new guidelines. The Court conducted a preliminary evaluation and found the petition lacked prima facie merit, as the supporting testimonials appeared pre-made and not genuine based on similarities in wording and lack of notarization. Given petitioner's numerous infractions, the Court did not believe sufficient time had passed to ensure reformation. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

Norie Sapanta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
261 views

In Re Ricafort Digest

Petitioner, an attorney, committed multiple breaches of fiduciary duty resulting in indefinite suspension and disbarment on multiple occasions. He filed a petition for clemency after only 3 years and 9 months since his most recent disbarment, less than the 5-year minimum required by new guidelines. The Court conducted a preliminary evaluation and found the petition lacked prima facie merit, as the supporting testimonials appeared pre-made and not genuine based on similarities in wording and lack of notarization. Given petitioner's numerous infractions, the Court did not believe sufficient time had passed to ensure reformation. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

Norie Sapanta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

FACTS:

Petitioner committed multiple administrative infractions all involving serious


breaches of his fiduciary duties to his clients. This resulted into the imposition of
indefinite suspension in A.C. No. 5054, disbarment in A.C. No. 8253, and another
disbarment in A.C. No. 6484.
Petitioner filed the subject petition, attaching numerous certifications and
testimonials in support of his plea for clemency. He said that it has been 17 years since
he was indefinitely suspended in A.C. No. 5054 and has since atoned for his
indiscretions. Petitioner earnestly hopes to be accorded judicial clemency "before he
embarks on his final journey into the unknown, and that his absolution would be the only
legacy he would leave to his children and grandchildren.
The new clemency guidelines for reinstatement to the Bar are as follows:
1. A lawyer who has been disbarred cannot file a petition for judicial clemency
within a period of five (5) years from the effective date of his or her disbarment,
unless for the most compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, a
shorter period is warranted.
For petitions already filed at the time of this Resolution, the Court may dispense
with the five (5)-year minimum requirement and instead, in the interest of
fairness, proceed with a preliminary evaluation of the petition in order to
determine its prima facie merit.

2. Upon the lapse of the said five (5)-year period, or earlier if so permitted by the
Court, a disbarred lawyer becomes eligible to file a verified petition for judicial
clemency. The petition, together with its supporting evidence appended thereto,
must show on its face that the following criteria have been met:
(a) The petitioner has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all
prior disciplinary orders, including orders for restitution, as well as the five (5)-
year period to file, unless he or she seeks an earlier filing for the most compelling
reasons based on extraordinary circumstances;
(b) The petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of · the
misconduct for which he or she was disbarred. For petitions already filed at the
time of this Resolution, it is required that the petitioner show that he or she
genuinely attempted in good faith to reconcile with the wronged private offended
party in the case for which he or she was disbarred (if any), or if such is not
possible, the petitioner must explain with sufficient reasons as to why such
attempt at reconciliation could not be made; and
(c) Notwithstanding the conduct for which the disbarred lawyer was
disciplined, the disbarred lawyer has the requisite integrity and competence to
practice law.
3. Upon the filing of the verified petition for clemency, together with its attachments, the
Court shall first conduct a preliminary evaluation and determine if the same has prima
facie merit based on the criteria above-stated.
4. If the petition has prima facie merit based on the above criteria, the Court shall refer
the petition to the OBC ( or any other fact-finding body the Court so designates) in order
to verify the details and the authenticity of the statements made and the evidence
attached to the clemency petition. If the petition fails to show any prima facie merit, it
should be denied.
5. After its investigation, the OBC (or such other fact-finding body designated by the
Court) shall submit its fact-finding report to the Court, which shall ultimately
resolve the clemency petition based on the facts established in the said report.
The threshold of evidence to be applied is clear and convincing evidence since it
is incumbent upon the petitioner to hurdle the seriousness of his or her
established past administrative liability/ies, the gravity of which had warranted the
supreme penalty of disbarment.

6. Unless otherwise resolved by the Court sitting En Banc, these guidelines and
procedure shall apply to pending petitions for judicial clemency, as well as to
those filed after the promulgation of this Resolution.
HELD:
In this case, it has only been 3years, 9 months, and 9 days from the most recent
Decision against him in A.C. No. 6484 - petitioner filed the subject petition; and
seventeen (17) days later, on April 11, 2019, filed the supplemental petition. As
indicated by the facts, the subject petitions were filed less than five (5) years from the
time the last administrative resolution in A.C. No. 6484 was handed down against him.
However, as stated in the new guidelines, "[f]or petitions already filed at the time of this
Resolution, the Court may dispense with the five (5)-year minimum requirement and
instead, in the interest of fairness, proceed with a preliminary evaluation of the petition
in order to determine its prima facie merit."
After preliminary evaluation, the subject petitions, however, fail to show any prima facie
merit. At the outset, it is observed that the testimonials/certifications attached to the
subject petitions were all one-pagers that are similarly patterned and worded.
Similarities indicate that they were not actual and personal accounts of the signatories.
It is most likely all premade
Further observed that none of the testimonials were executed under oath and hence
render doubtful, on their face, the genuineness of the statements or sincerity of the
signatories. Neither was there any corroborative evidence included in the petition to
show that the alleged socio-civic activities mentioned were indeed conducted and if so,
how many times were they conducted, including their details and scope.
Thus, in view of petitioner's numerous infractions, the Court does not believe that
"[ s ]ufficient time [has] lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reformation,"

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy