Full Text

LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS, PETITIONER VS. QUINCIANO VAILOCES, RESPONDENT.

This concerns the disbarment of Quinciano Vailoces as member of the Philippine bar.
It appears that as member of the bar and in his capacity as a notary public, Vailoces, on December 14, 1950 ,
acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of one Tarcila
Visitacion de Jesus. Presented for probate before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, the will was
impugned by her surviving spouse and daughter. Consequently, the probate court, finding that the will was a
forgery, rendered decision denying probate to the will. This decision became final. On the basis of this decision
a criminal action for falsification of public document was filed against Vailoces and the three attesting
witnesses to the will before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental where, after trial, they were found
guilty and convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with regard to Vailoces but
modified it with regard to his co-accused. As finally adjudged, Vailoces was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of falsified of public document defined and penalized in Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code and was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from 2 years 4 months and 1 day
of prisión correccional, as minimum, to 8 years 1 day of prisión mayor, as maximum, with the accessories of
the law, fine and costs. This sentence having become final, Vailoces began serving it in the insular penitentiary.
As a consequence, the offended party instituted the present disbarment proceedings.In his answer,
respondent not only disputes the judgment of conviction rendered against him in the criminal case but
contends that the same is based on insufficient and inconclusive evidence, the charge being merely motivated
by sheer vindictiveness, malice and spite on the part of herein complainant, and that to give course to this
proceeding would be tantamount to placing him in double jeopardy. He pleads that the complaint be
dismissed.
Under Section 25, Rule 127, of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
his office as attorney if it appears that he has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral
turpitude, as used in this section, includes any act deemed contrary to justice, honesty or good
morals.[1] Among the examples given of crimes of this nature by former Chief Justice Moran are the crime of
seduction and the crime of concubinage[2]. The crime of which respondent was convicted is falsification of
public document, which is indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary to justice, honesty and good
morals. Hence such crime involves moral turpitude. Indeed it is well-settled that "embezzlement, forgery,
robbery, swindling are crimes, which denote moral turpitude and, as a genera] rule, all crimes of which fraud
is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude" (53 C.J.S., 1206).It appearing that respondent has
been found guilty and convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude it is clear that he rendered himself
amenable to disbarment under Section 25, Rule 127, of our Rules of Court. It is futile on his part much as we
sympathize with him to dispute now the sufficiency of his conviction, for this is a matter which we cannot now
look into. That is now a closed chapter insofar as this proceeding is concerned. The only issue with which we
are concerned is that he was found guilty and convicted by a final judgment of a crime involving moral
turpitude. As this Court well said:
"The review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us, The judgment not only has become final but
has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege
bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved,
himself unfit to protect the administration of justice." The plea of respondent that to disbar him now after his
conviction of a crime which resulted in the deprivation of his liberty and of his office as Justice of the Peace of
Bais, Negros Oriental would be tantamount to placing him in double jeopardy is untenable, for such defense
can only be availed of when he is placed in the predicament of being prosecuted for the same offense, or for
any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense necessarily included therein, within
the meaning of Section 9, Rule 113. Such is not the case here. The disbarment of an attorney does not partake
of a criminal proceeding. Rather, it is intended "to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of
officers of the court" (In re Montagne and Dominguez, 3 Phil., 588), and its purpose is "to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence" .Wherefore, respondent is
hereby removed from his office as attorney and, to this effect, our Clerk of Court is enjoined to erase his name
from the roll of attorneys.
 Digest
Facts
Quinciano Vailoces executed the last will and testament of Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus which was later
found out to be a forged document as disputed by the spouse and daughter of de Jesus. On the basis of this
decision, a criminal action for falsification of public document was filed against Vailoces. He was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of falsified of public document both by the Regional Trial Court and Court of
Appeals. As a consequence, the offended party instituted the present disbarment proceedings.

Issue
Whether or not Quinciano Vailoces should be disbarred due to a crime involving moral turpitude.

Ruling
Yes, he was disbarred. Under Section 25, Rule 127, of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney if it appears that he has been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Moral turpitude, as used in this section, includes any act deemed contrary to justice, honesty
or good morals. Falsification of public document, which is indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary
to justice, honesty and good morals.