Nunez v. Ricafort

Judicial clemency
Nunez v. Ricafort
A.C. No. 5054, March 02, 2021
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
DOCTRINE:
“[M]embership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is not a natural, absolute or
constitutional right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted and
continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in moral
character." The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When exercising its
inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should see that only those who establish their
present moral fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar. Thus, though the
doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a
duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure that if the doors are opened, it
is done so only as a matter of justice.”
FACTS:
 On different occasions, three different administrative disciplinary complaints were filed

against Atty. Romula Ricafort. All of which involved serious breaches of his fiduciary duties
to his clients.
 In his first administrative case, the Court ruled for his indefinite suspension.
 In his second administrative case, the Court considered the fact that Ricafort practiced law
despite his indefinite suspension, and once again imposed a disbarment penalty.
 In 2019, Ricafort filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Clemency and Compassion.
This plea came 17 years after his indefinite suspension from his first case, and when he was
already 70 yrs old. He stated that he has atoned for his indiscretion.
ISSUE:
Should judicial clemency be granted in favor of Ricafort?
RULING:
NO. Granting judicial clemency lies in the sound discretion of the Court pursuant to its
constitutional mandate to regulate the legal profession. In the exercise of such discretion, the Court
is essentially called to perform an act of mercy by permitting the return of a repentant and reformed
disbarred lawyer back to the ranks of the legal profession and thus, resume discharging the
privileges and assuming the duties attendant thereto. However, the compassion of the Court in
clemency cases must always be tempered by the greater interest of the legal profession and the
society in general.
In the instant case, it is observed that the testimonials/certifications attached to the subject petitions
were all one-pagers that are similarly patterned and worded. The uncanny similarities between the
testimonials/certifications create an impression that they were not actual and personal accounts of
the signatories, but rather – more likely than not – all pre-made, pro-forma documents conveniently
made for their signing.
It is similarly worth noting that petitioner committed multiple administrative infractions all
involving serious breaches of his fiduciary duties to his clients. In the same vein. Je filed the subject
petition only on March 25, 2019 or just three years, nine months, and nine days from the most recent
decision. In view of Ricafort’s numerous infractions, the time has lapsed from the imposition of the
penalty is insufficient to ensure a period of reformation. After preliminary evaluation, the subject
petitions, however, fail to show any prima facie merit.
In fine, for the guidance of the Bench, the Bar, and the public, the new clemency guidelines for
reinstatement to the Bar are as follows:
1. A lawyer who has been disbarred cannot file a petition for judicial clemency within a period
of five (5) years from the effective date of his or her disbarment, unless for the most
compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, a shorter period is warranted.
For petitions already filed at the time of this Resolution, the Court may dispense with the
five (5)-year minimum requirement and instead, in the interest of fairness, proceed with a
preliminary evaluation of the petition in order to determine its prima facie merit.
2. Upon the lapse of the said five (5)-year period, or earlier if so permitted by the Court, a
disbarred lawyer becomes eligible to file a verified petition for judicial clemency.
The petition, together with its supporting evidence appended thereto, must show on its face
that the following criteria have been met:
(a) The petitioner has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior disciplinary
orders, including orders for restitution, as well as the five (5)-year period to file, unless he or
she seeks an earlier filing for the most compelling reasons based on extraordinary
circumstances;
(b) The petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct for which
he or she was disbarred. For petitions already filed at the time of this Resolution, it is
required that the petitioner show that he or she genuinely attempted in good faith to
reconcile with the wronged private offended party in the case for which he or she was
disbarred (if any), or if such is not possible, the petitioner must explain with sufficient
reasons as to why such attempt at reconciliation could not be made; and
(c) Notwithstanding the conduct for which the disbarred lawyer was disciplined, the
disbarred lawyer has the requisite integrity and competence to practice law.
3. Upon the filing of the verified petition for clemency, together with its attachments, the
Court shall first conduct a preliminary evaluation and determine if the same has prima facie
merit based on the criteria above-stated.
4. If the petition has prima facie merit based on the above-criteria, the Court shall refer the
petition to the OBC (or any other fact-finding body the Court so designates) in order to
verify the details and the authenticity of the statements made and the evidence attached to
the clemency petition.
If the petition fails to show any prima facie merit, it should be denied.
5. After its investigation, the OBC (or such other fact-finding body designated by the Court)
shall submit its fact-finding report to the Court, which shall ultimately resolve the clemency
petition based on the facts established in the said report. The threshold of evidence to be
applied is clear and convincing evidence since it is incumbent upon the petitioner to hurdle
the seriousness of his or her established past administrative liability/ies, the gravity of
which had warranted the supreme penalty of disbarment.
6. Unless otherwise resolved by the Court sitting En Banc, these guidelines and procedure
shall apply to pending petitions for judicial clemency, as well as to those filed after the
promulgation of this Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated March 21, 2019 and the
Supplemental Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated April 5, 2019 filed in A.C. Nos.
5054 and 6484 are hereby DENIED.

Nunez v. Ricafort

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nunez v. Ricafort

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nunez v. Ricafort

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judicial clemency

 On different occasions, three different administrative disciplinary complaints were filed

Should judicial clemency be granted in favor of Ricafort?

You might also like