EN BANC

[A.C. No. 561 . April 27, 1967.]

IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO P. VINZON , respondent.

Solicitor General for complainant.

Isidro P. Vinzon in his own behalf as respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. DISBARMENT; MORAL TURPITUDE DEFINED; ESTAFA; CONSEQUENCE OF

CONVICTION THEREOF. — Moral turpitude includes everything done contrary to justice,
honesty, or good morals. In essence and in all respects, estafa, no doubt, is a crime
involving moral turpitude because the act is unquestionably against justice, honesty and
good morals. As respondent's guilt cannot now be questioned, his disbarment is
inevitable.

DECISION

DIZON, J : p

This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon of Cavite City

referred to Us by the Solicitor General on January 7, 1963 pursuant to the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 02243-CR promulgated on October 1, 1962
a rming the one rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila convicting said
respondent and his wife, Filomena D. Vinzon, of the crime of estafa. The pertinent
portion of the former reads as follows:
"In an information led with the Court of the First Instance of Manila,
the spouses Isidro P. Vinzon and Filomena D. Vinzon were charge with the
crime of estafa for having failed to deliver and for misappropriating the sum
of P7,000.00 which represented a portion of the total amount of P9,621.60
of U. S. Depository check numbered 685,891 belonging and payable to
Felicidad M. Bagtas as unremarried widow of the deceased veteran
Maximino C. Bagtas. After the prosecution had rested its case the defense
led a motion to dismiss for insu ciency of evidence, which motion was
however denied for lack of merit. Thereafter, the accused waived their the
right to present their evidence and instead submitted the case for decision.
Thus decision was rendered below nding both accused guilty as charged
and sentencing them, each to undergo an indeterminate penalty of from 3
months and 11 days of arresto mayor, to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of
prision correccional with the accessory penalties; to indemnify the offended
party Felicidad M. Bagtas in the amount of P7,000.60, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and each to pay one-half of the costs.

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 "Wherefore, nding no reversible error in the appealed decision, the
same is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the appellants. The attention
of the Solicitor General is invited to the decision herein for the purpose of
instituting disbarment proceedings against the appellant Isidro P. Vinzon,
who, it appears from the record. is a member of the Philippine Bar."

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

"The evidence on record reveals that Felicidad M. Bagtas was found
to be mentally incompetent, suffering from schizophrenic reaction,
hebephrenic type, upon examination by a psychiatrist of the U.S. Veterans
Administration (U.S.V.A.) in the course of the investigation conducted in
connection with her application for bene ts as the unremarried widow of the
late veteran Maximino C. Bagtas (Exh. E). In the same application Felicidad
M. Bagtas was assisted by the herein appellant Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon, who
on various occasions had asked her to thumbmark several papers in
connection with the application. On April 22, 1955, the appellant above
named, as attorney for the widow Bagtas and through a letter which he had
thumbmarked by the latter, caused the alteration of the applicant widow's
address on record with the U.S.V.A., from San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, to
41 Interior, P. Burgos St., Cavite City (Exh. A-2). Actually, Bagtas continued to
reside in Parañaque; the new recorded address was really that of the herein
appellants.

"Sometime in June, 1955, the appellant Filomena B. Vinzon fetched

the widow Bagtas and her mother, Susana Osio, together with one Juliet
Oliva, from their abode in Parañaque and brought them to the appellants'
residence in Cavite where they were supposed to meet an investigator of the
U.S.V.A. While there, Osio and Bagtas were asked to sign several papers, the
contents of which they did not know, but which the appellants said were in
connection with the widow's bene t claim. Then Osio and Oliva were invited
by the appellant Isidro P. Vinzon to go to the municipal building, leaving
Bagtas in the company of Mrs. Vinzon. From their tour of the municipal
building, Osio and Oliva were brought by Isidro P. Vinzon to a restaurant
before they returned to the Vinzon residence. Upon their arrival thereat Osio
and Oliva noticed Felicidad Bagtas wiping ink from her thumb, and upon
their inquiry, the widow informed them that Mrs. Vinzon had asked her
(Bagtas) to 'thumbprint several times.' Shortly thereafter, Bagtas and her
companions went home, because the alleged investigator did not arrive.
"Later in that same day Mrs. Vinzon reappeared at Parañaque and
told Osio that they would proceed to Manila in order to 'get the bene ts as
early as possible.' So once again, Osio and Bagtas went out with Mrs.
Vinzon, and in front of the U.S.V.A building on the Escolta they met a man
whom Osio and the widow took to be an agent of the U.S.V.A. This man
inquired of Mrs. Vinzon if Felicidad Bagtas as was 'the one', and upon an
a rmative answer the same person brought them to an eatery where Osio
was asked to sign something, after which the amount of P2,421.00 and
'some centavos' were delivered to her. Upon Mrs. Vinzon's suggestion Osio
gave that unnamed man P50.00, and when they were already at the bus
terminal on their way home, Osio gave Mrs. Vinzon another amount, making
her total disbursement for that afternoon P200.00."

In his answer filed on April 22, 1963, respondent alleges the following:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 "1. That he admits that there is a nal decision of the Court of
Appeals, a portion of which is quoted in the letter of the Solicitor General
dated Dec. 28, 1962;

"2. That he, however denies that a conviction for any crime per se is
sufficient ground for suspension or disbarment;

"3. That while the decision of the Court of Appeals became nal for
lack of appeal to the Supreme Court, it does not necessarily follow that the
said conviction is absolutely binding on this Hon. Supreme Court if upon
hearing of the instant proceedings, turn out to be not legal nor valid under
the law and facts, for, in parenthesis, we state that the records of the Hon.
Supreme Court can attest to the fact that there is quite a number of Court of
Appeals decisions which have been reversed for being illegal and contrary to
law by the Supreme Court, which is the highest Tribunal.

"4. That the ndings of facts of the Court of Appeals and its stand on
the legal questions raised, are not in accordance with the doctrines cited in
Appellant's Brief;

"5. That the testimonies of prosecution witnesses viewed in their

proper light do not prove any estafa, for nowhere in their evidence to the
effect that this respondent had ever cashed the check in question, on the
contrary, the evidence of the prosecution simply pointed to an unknown
person who delivered certain sum of money to the offended party in the
presence of the wife of respondent, and there is even no proof that
respondent and said unknown person knew each other at anytime before or
after the alleged delivery.

"6. That it is respectfully submitted that respondent is innocent of the

alleged estafa for (1) there is no evidence that he ever received and cashed
the US check involved; (2) no evidence that he ever received the proceeds
thereof; (3) no evidence that he had any connivance or connection with the
unknown person who according to prosecution evidence was the one who
gave a sum of money to offended party; (4) and nally assuming that there
was such a check and respondent received the proceeds, in the absence of
demand, estafa does not lie."
The case was set for hearing at 9:30 A.M. on June 21, 1963 but neither the
Solicitor General nor the respondent appeared notwithstanding notice served upon
them. Consequently, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
The only point to be determined is whether upon conviction for the crime of
estafa the respondent may be disbarred.
In his answer to the petition for disbarment, respondent prayed that a proper
hearing be held, but this notwithstanding he failed to appear at the hearing scheduled to
be held on June 21, 1963. This amounts to a waiver of his right to be heard (Arellano
Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963).
Upon the other hand, and dealing now with the merits of the case, there can be no
question that the term "moral turpitude" includes everything which is done contrary to
justice, honesty, or good morals. In essence and in all respects, estafa, no doubt, is a
crime involving moral turpitude because the act is unquestionably against justice,
honesty and good morals (In re Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. 263, July 31, 1962; Bouvier's
Law Dictionary; In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275-76). As respondent's guilt can not now be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 questioned, his disbarment is inevitable.
Wherefore, respondent Isidro P. Vinzon is hereby disbarred.
Concepcion, C. J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and
Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com