View full case

RODOLFO M. BERNARDO v. ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case is Ismael F. Mejia, who is already seventy-one years old and barred from the practice of law for fifteen years. Mejia was accused by his client, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr., of misappropriating and converting funds entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes and expenses related to the registration of property. He was also accused of falsifying certain documents and issuing checks without sufficient funds. The Supreme Court En Banc rendered a decision declaring Mejia guilty of the charges and imposing the penalty of disbarment. Mejia filed a petition for reinstatement in 1999, which was denied. In 2007, Mejia filed the present petition for review with a plea for reinstatement. Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions and expressed remorse. He engaged in religious and social writings and organized a religious organization after his disbarment. The Court, taking into consideration the rehabilitation of Mejia and his advanced age, decided to grant the petition for reinstatement. However, the Court reminded Mejia that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Ismael F. Mejia should be reinstated in the practice of law

  2. Whether the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will be preserved with Mejia's reentry as a counselor at law

  3. Whether Mejia is a person of good moral character and a fit and proper person to practice law

  4. Whether Mejia has shown remorse and rehabilitation since his disbarment

  5. Whether the penalty of disbarment has already served its purpose and whether Mejia should be granted reinstatement

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court granted the petition for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys filed by Ismael F. Mejia. The Court took into consideration that fifteen years had already elapsed since Mejia was disbarred and that no other transgression has been attributed to him since then. Mejia has shown remorse and rehabilitated himself by engaging in religious and social activities. The Court also considered Mejia's advanced age and the fact that he has already suffered the ignominy of disbarment for a considerable period of time. The Court emphasized that while discipline is important, compassion should also be shown once the penalty has already served its purpose. Mejia was granted reinstatement with a reminder that the practice of law is a privilege that requires adherence to strict standards of mental fitness, morality, and compliance with the rules of the legal profession.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer rests on the sound discretion of the Court and depends on whether the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will be preserved with the applicant's reentry as a counselor at law.

  • An applicant seeking reinstatement must prove that he or she is a person of good moral character and a fit and proper person to practice law.

  • The Court will consider the applicant's character and standing prior to disbarment, the nature and character of the charges for which he or she was disbarred, the conduct subsequent to disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

  • Rehabilitation and remorse shown by the disbarred lawyer may be taken into consideration in granting reinstatement.

  • The penalty of disbarment is imposed not to punish, but to correct offenders. The Court may grant reinstatement once the penalty has served its purpose.

  • The practice of law is a privilege that requires adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, the highest degree of morality, and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession.