Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II Vs. Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz/Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II Vs. Judge Ofelia M.D. Artuz, Municiapl Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City, Iloilo A.C. No. 7253/A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717. February 18, 2020

Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II Vs. Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz/Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II Vs. Judge Ofelia M.D. Artuz, Municiapl Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City, Iloilo A.C. No. 7253/A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717. February 18, 2020

Per Curiam

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11920/

Issues
Anent A.M No. MTJ-08-1717, it is well to note that in an earlier Decision dated August 29, 2017, the Court had already found respondent guilty of the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents for deliberately and calculatedly lying in her October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006 PDS about the fact that she had been formally charged and had pending cases to make it appear that she is qualified for the judgeship position. Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC - which provides that administrative cases against a judge for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification are automatically considered as disciplinary proceedings against him or her as a member of the Bar - respondent was made to show cause why she should not be disbarred. As the OBC correctly pointed out, "[i]nstead of showing cause and proving to the Court why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise administratively dealt with, [respondent] opted to focus more on attacking and impugning [Atty. Nava II's] integrity and credibility" and conveniently brushed aside her omissions in her PDS as "mere error in judgment."

On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Any violation of these conditions exposes the lawyer to administrative liability, as in this case.

All told, the Court finds that respondent had violated several canons of professional and ethical conduct expected from her as a lawyer and an officer of the court. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same.

Decisions
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz (respondent) GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Accordingly, she is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Let copies of this resolution be furnished to: (a) the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (c) the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar.

The Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration and the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2019 in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the Resolution dated January 10, 2018 denying with finality respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated August 29, 2017)