18. SORIANO vs.

DIZON,

FACTS:

Roberto Soriano (Soriano) filed a complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon (Atty.
Dizon) on the ground that the latter’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude violates Canon 1 of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Soriano alleged that respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and that the conviction of the
latter for frustrated homicide, which involved moral turpitude, should result in his disbarment. The
accused while driving his car met into a fight with Soriano which resulted to a heated argument, and,
thereafter, shot the latter. Fortunately, Soriano was aided and was brought at the hospital. Atty Dizon
was convicted for frustrated homicide, a crime involving moral turpitude. The IBP Commissioner
recommended that respondent be disbarred. He is not only convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude and also exhibited an obvious lack of good moral character.

ISSUE:

WON Atty Dizon is liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:

YES, the Supreme Court held that Atty. Dizon is liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Moral turpitude is everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act
of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Homicide may or may not
involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.

In this case, it is evidently shows that Atty. Dizon was the aggressor, as he pursued and shot
complainant when the latter least expected it. Treachery is a further indication of the skewed morals of
respondent. To make things worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with a handkerchief so as
not to leave fingerprints. Thus, premises considered, it is clear that respondent seriously transgressed
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm
and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.

PENALTY: Disbarred.