Você está na página 1de 2

VITRIOLO V.

DASIG
A. C No. 4984 April 1, 2003
Facts:
Atty. Julito Vitriolo and other high ranking officials of CHED filed a disbarment
case against Atty. Felina Dasig, OIC of Legal Affairs Service of CHED. The
former alleged that the latter demanded money from some individuals for
the facilitation of their applications for correction of name. The Court
required the respondent to file a comment on charges but to no avail. The
complaint was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and the
latter resolve the same finding the respondent committed a violation of her
oath as a government official and was suspended from the practice of law for
the maximum period of 3 years.
Issue:
WON respondent Atty. Felina Dasig may be disciplined by the Court (SC)
considering that he holds a government office
Ruling:
Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may NOT be disciplined
as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if said misconduct as a government official
also constitutes a VIOLATION OF HIS OATH AS A LAWYER, then he may
be disciplined by this court as a member of the Bar. In the case at bar, the
respondent, on various occasions, attempted to extort money from some
individuals and such act as a lawyer affects her qualification as a member of
the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently
unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for
the approval of applications and requests awaiting action by her office. The
Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer
and any violation thereof is a ground for DISBARMENT, SUSPENSION, and
other disciplinary action. A member of the bar who assumes public office
DOES NOT shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of
Professional Responsibility was not meant to govern the conduct of
private practitioners alone, but of ALL lawyers including those in
government service. Respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for
GROSS MISCONDUCT and DISHONESTY in violation of the Attorneys Oath
as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility and was ordered
DISBARRED.

Você também pode gostar