PIATT vs ABORDO

FACTS:
 Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, On February 19, 1932 entered into a
transaction between two individuals to sell him a quantity of Opium
 On the afternoon of the same day, he was picked up from Taft Avenue and was taken to
Rizal Avenue which is outside the city limits of Manila
 A can was disclosed to Aborodo allegedly containing opium, and was tasked to deliver it.
 While in his way to return to Manila, another vehicle overtook them pretending to be
constabulary soldiers, told Abordo to stop.
 Instead of doing so, he drew his revolver and commended the driver to turn into Calle
Vito Cruz. Eventually, he was able to evade the pursuers and arrived at Pasay safely.
 Upon finding out that the opium was fake, he reported to the Luneta Police Station of
Manila that he had been robbed of P600. Consequently, two individuals were later
arrested, charged with the crime of estafa, and were convicted
 Abordo admits he did enter to the aforementioned transaction and that he was sorry for
it and vows not to repeat.
 In his defense, the absence of the evidence establishing the relationship of attorney and
client between the respondent and the malefactors and the act complained were not
committed in exercising his profession as an attorney-at-law, these acts could not affect
his status and therefore cannot be constituted as a ground for disciplinary action.

ISSUE:
WON the actions of Abordo can be grounds for a disciplinary action sanctioned by the SC

RULING:
YES. His actions are grounds for disciplinary actions

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the grounds for the
suspension or disbarment of a lawyer. It is well settled that a member of the bar may
be suspended or removed from his office as lawyer for other than statutory grounds.
However, as a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its
officers for misconduct alleged to be committed in his private capacity. The exception
to the rule is that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in
his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties.
The Solicitor-General submits that the respondent should be reprimanded and warned
that a repetition of similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely. To our
minds such leniency on the part of the Supreme Court would serve merely to condone
a pernicious example set by a member of the bar, and would result in action entirely
inadequate considering the aggravated nature of the case.
In the cases of In re Terrel and Again, In re Pelaez, respondents were suspended from
practice for 1 year, the same is applicable to the instant case.
Thus, the SC held that the respondent Perfecto Abordo be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year to begin on September 1, 1933