Scribd
Upload
172 views1 page

Disbarment Case: Soriano v. Dizon

Respondent, a lawyer, was driving under the influence of alcohol and got into an altercation with a taxi driver. During the confrontation, respondent shot the taxi driver in the neck. Respondent was convicted of frustrated homicide but allowed probation on the condition he pays civil liabilities, which he failed to do for four years. The court ruled the respondent's conviction warrants his disbarment, as his act of shooting without justification demonstrated moral turpitude which is contrary to good morals and the duties owed to fellowmen and society.

Uploaded by

Krystalynne Aguilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
172 views1 page

Disbarment Case: Soriano v. Dizon

Respondent, a lawyer, was driving under the influence of alcohol and got into an altercation with a taxi driver. During the confrontation, respondent shot the taxi driver in the neck. Respondent was convicted of frustrated homicide but allowed probation on the condition he pays civil liabilities, which he failed to do for four years. The court ruled the respondent's conviction warrants his disbarment, as his act of shooting without justification demonstrated moral turpitude which is contrary to good morals and the duties owed to fellowmen and society.

Uploaded by

Krystalynne Aguilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SORIANO V DIZON

A. C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006, EN BANC (Per Curiam)

FACTS:
Atty. Dizon was driving with his wife along Abanao street in Baguio City under
the influence of alcohol. A taxi driver overtook his car enraged; respondent tailed
the driver until the vehicle came to a stop. He then headed towards the taxi driver
and berated. The taxi driver opened his door and caused the respondent to fall to
the ground. Respondent moved to throw a punch, but the taxi driver successfully
dodged his attack. Respondent went back his to his car and the taxi driver was
about to do the same when he noticed the respondent’s eyeglasses. He crouched to
pick them up and when he rose, he faced a bullet straight to his neck. Respondent
was convicted for frustrated homicide but was allowed probation on the condition
that he pays his civil liabilities. Four years has lapsed and respondent on the has
yet fulfill his obligation. Petitioner sought for the disbarment of respondent on the
ground of moral turpitude.

ISSUE:
WON Respondent’s conviction warrants his disbarment

RULING:
Yes, moral turpitude is defined by the Court as an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social domes which a man owes to his fellowmen, or
to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Moral
turpitude was evidenced by the respondent’s act of shooting without any
justifiable reason. His acts did not constitute self-defense and is coupled with
treachery.

You might also like