“Temper justice with mercy.”
This exactly what the Supreme Court (SC) did on the case of a 78-year-old lawyer who could have been disbarred but was meted only a two-year suspension from the practice of law for fraudulent acts to cover up his negligence.
Suspended as a lawyer for two years was Wilfredo Lina-ac on an administrative complaint filed by Everdina C. Angeles who shelled out P50,000 for legal services to nullify her marriage.
Lina-ac was ordered to return the money to Angeles and to pay six per cent interest until the amount is fully paid.
“Ours is a court of law, but it is our humane compassion that strengthens us as an institution and cloaks us ‘with a mantle of respect and legitimacy,’” the SC said in a resolution written by Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.
A copy of the resolution was not immediately available. But a summary of the case issued by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated:
“Angeles engaged the services of Atty. Lina-ac sometime in February 2010 to secure a declaration nullifying her marriage with her husband.
“After she repeatedly followed up on the status of her case, Atty. Lina-ac, instead of filing an actual petition for the nullity of marriage, attempted to hoodwink her by furnishing her a copy of a complaint with a fraudulent received stamp purportedly from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon.
“On top of this, despite an agreement to severe their attorney-client relationship, Atty. Lina-ac proceeded in filing a complaint for nullity of Angeles’ marriage before the RTC. In his defense, Atty. Lina-ac denied swindling Angeles and emphasized he had fulfilled his duties as her counsel.”
Quoting from the resolution, the PIO said “the Court held that Lina-ac’s deceitful conduct violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which provides, ‘A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.’”
It said the SC “held that Lina-ac fell short of the standard required of him as Angeles’ legal counsel when he had failed to serve her with competence and diligence in violation of Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 1.01, 18.03, and 18.04 of the CPR.”
It also said: “The Court ruled that Atty. Lina-ac’s belated filing of a petition even after the attorney-client relationship was severed to cover up his earlier negligence and thwart Angeles’ efforts to recover the Php50,000 she paid him for his professional fee, ‘reflects his lack of integrity, and is a clear violation of the oath he took before becoming a lawyer.’”
But the PIO said the SC “took judicial notice that ‘Atty. Lina-ac will be about 78 years old by the time this Resolution is promulgated,’ and imposed on him a two-year suspension instead of disbarment as it deemed ‘proper to temper justice with mercy’ in light of his age.” (Rey G. Panaligan)
