EN BANC

[A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC. April 16, 2013.]

IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO,

PETITIONER IN BIRAOGO, petitioner, vs. NOGRALES AND
LIMKAICHONG, G.R. NO. 179120, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated
APRIL 16, 2013, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC (IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C.

BIRAOGO, PETITIONER IN BIRAOGO VS. NOGRALES AND LIMKAICHONG,
G.R. NO. 179120). — For resolution are the six (6) letters filed by Justice
Ruben T. Reyes (Ret.), seeking the benevolence of the Court to lift his indefinite
suspension from the practice of law and disqualification to hold public office.
In a Decision dated February 24, 2009, the Court found Justice Reyes
guilty of grave misconduct for wilfully causing the premature leakage of his
ponencia in G.R. No. 179120, entitled Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong,
prior to its official promulgation. Accordingly, he was sanctioned a fine of
P500,000.00 and was disqualified to hold any office or employment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, with a show cause directive as to why he should not be
disciplined as a lawyer. The dispositive portion of the Decision states: EDcIAC

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the

findings and APPROVES WITH MODIFICATION the
Recommendations of the Investigating Committee as follows:

1. Justice Ruben T. Reyes (Ret.) is held liable for

GRAVE MISCONDUCT for leaking a confidential internal
document of the Court and he is FINED P500,000.00, to be
charged against his retirement benefits, and disqualified to hold
any office or employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations; furthermore, Justice Ruben T. Reyes is directed to
SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this
Decision why he should not be disciplined as a member of the
Bar in light of the aforementioned findings.

2. Atty. Rosendo B. Evangelista and Armando Del

Rosario are held liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and are
ordered to pay the FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 and
P5,000.00, respectively.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 This Decision shall take effect immediately.

SO ORDERED.

On April 15, 2009, Justice Reyes filed a Motion to Set Aside Decision,
seeking reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated February 24, 2009. The
motion was treated as a motion for reconsideration and was eventually denied
with finality in the Resolution dated August 11, 2009. In addition, Justice Reyes
was also adjudged guilty of gross misconduct for violating Rules 1.01 1 and 1.02
2 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, accordingly, meted
upon him the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law and
disqualification to hold any office or employment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. SacTAC

In a Letter dated August 31, 2011, Justice Reyes said that he is seeking
the Court's compassion with a contrite heart and averred that since the
purpose of his suspension having been achieved and for humanitarian
consideration, he is praying for the lifting of his indefinite suspension from the
practice of law.
In another Letter dated December 9, 2011, Justice Reyes added that he is
also asking for the lifting of his disqualification to hold a government office.
In his 3rd and 4th Letters dated June 26 and December 18, 2012,
respectively, Justice Reyes clarified that he is not seeking a reconsideration of
the Fine imposed upon him and once again implored the Court's compassionate
justice.
In his 5th Letter dated January 16, 2013, Justice Reyes categorically
stated that he is withdrawing his request for reconsideration of the Decision
and Resolution. Instead, he is seeking judicial clemency and the sound
discretion of the Court.
In his latest Letter dated March 14, 2013, Justice Reyes narrates that it
has been four years since he was fined and disqualified, and more than three
and a half years has passed since he was indefinitely suspended. Justice Reyes
laments that the anxiety of waiting now bears heavily on his health, and at the
age of 74, he has fewer years left to be of service again to the Bar and the
community.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to
the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the Bar and for
enjoying the privilege to the practice of law. The Court, as guardian of the legal
profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to
discipline its members is not only a right, but a bounden duty as well, and that
is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members. 3 The
suspension of a lawyer is not intended primarily as a punishment, but as a
measure of protection of the public and the profession, the lifting of which is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 based on the same criterion used by the Court in applications for reinstatement
to practice law, that is, whether or not "the public interest in the orderly and
impartial administration of justice will be conserved by the [respondent's]
participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law." The
respondent must, like a candidate for admission to the Bar, satisfy the Court
that he is a person of good moral character — a fit and proper person to
practice law. The Court will take into consideration his character and standing
prior to the suspension, the nature and character of the charge for which he
was suspended, his conduct subsequent thereto, and the time that has elapsed
after his suspension. 4 ITSacC

Three years and a half has passed since Justice Reyes was indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law and disqualified to hold any office or
employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. He has taken full responsibility
for his misdemeanor and expresses deep remorse for the consequences
thereto. In reconsidering the disciplinary measure imposed upon him by
granting him another opportunity, during his retirement years, to practice the
legal profession which he cherishes or be employed with the government, the
Court took into consideration his cooperative and humble attitude during the
investigation proceedings, no prior disciplinary history in his 35 years of
government service, and his good character and positive reputation.
In certain cases, the Court, in lifting the sanction of indefinite suspension
from the practice of law, has shown that it is not only a court of law and of
justice, but one with compassion; not a court of vengeance but of justice. 5
The Court in Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court
of Quezon City, Br. 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency , 6 laid down the
following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall
include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials
of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent
members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the
same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption
of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the

penalty to ensure a period of reformation.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he
still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good
use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual
aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal
scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for
public service.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that
may justify clemency. 7
llcd

Respondent's espousal of much regret and sincere apology for the

leakage incident and the consequent disturbance and inconvenience it caused
the Court, coupled with the persisting anguish and prevailing anxiety which he
withstood through deepened spirituality and corporal good works, show his
genuine repentance. Nearly four years have elapsed since Justice Reyes'
suspension from the practice of law. In addition to his advancing age, the Court
sees his contrite heart avowing to expiate the misdemeanor and inappropriate
conduct he committed and, henceforth, swearing to measure up to the
benchmark of discipline required of a member of the Bar.
Considering the foregoing, We lift the imposed sanctions of indefinite
suspension from the practice of law, but not the disqualification to hold any
office or employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. It is to be understood,
however, that the lifting of the suspension from the practice of law does not
include the privilege of respondent to teach in the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) program and to become a lecturer in any Philippine Judicial
Academy (Philja) seminars and lectures.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Letters dated August 31,

2011, December 9, 2011, June 26, 2012, December 18, 2012, January 16, 2013,
and March 14, 2013 of Justice Ruben T. Reyes (Ret.), which the Court treats as
motions for reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated August 11, 2009,
are NOTED. His request for judicial clemency is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
indefinite suspension from the practice of law imposed on him, in the Court's
Resolution dated August 11, 2009, is LIFTED.
The penalty of disqualification to hold any office or employment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations imposed remain in full force and effect.

Respondent is further barred from teaching in the Mandatory Continuing

Legal Education (MCLE) program and to become a lecturer in any Philippine
Judicial Academy (Philja) seminars and lectures." (adv43)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

2.Rule 1.02. — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
3.Adez Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 556, 561 (1995), citing
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and 80578, April 7, 1993,
221 SCRA 132, 135; Dumadag v. Lumaya , 390 Phil. 1, 10 (2000).
4.Igoy v. Soriano , 527 Phil. 322, 326 (2006). (Citations omitted.)

5.Foronda v. Guerrero, 516 Phil. 1, 3 (2006). See also Artiaga, Jr. v. Villanueva, 256
Phil. 690 (1989); Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil. 135 (2003).

6.A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, September 19, 2007, 533 SCRA 534.

7.Id., at 539.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com