The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a prosecutor after she was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for uttering foul and offensive remarks to the justices and for insulting the Bar Confidant.
In a per curiam decision, the SC ordered lawyer Perla D. Ramirez to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys after finding her guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), or the canons governing lawyers’ conduct towards the legal profession and the courts.
“This Court has always reminded members of the Bar that the practice of law is not a right, but a mere privilege which is subject to the inherent regulatory power of this Court. It is imperative for lawyers ‘to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity not only upon admission to the Bar, but also throughout their career in order to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession,” the SC ruled.
“Thus, lawyers are duty-bound to adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law,” it said.
Prior to her disbarment, Ramirez was ordered suspended for six months by the SC in a resolution issued on July 30, 2014 which found her liable for violation of Canon 7.03 of the CPR.
The provision prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law and from behaving in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life.
The high court’s sanction arose from a complaint filed in 2007 by employees of Lirio Apartments Condominium in Makati City where Ramirez resided.
The complaint sought Ramirez’s disbarment for her unruly and offensive behavior towards residents and employees of the condominium, which stemmed from various incidents from 1990 to 2007.
Ramirez was eventually suspended from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
However, when Ramirez requested for the lifting of her suspension in 2016, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), through then Bar Confidant Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, advised her to file the necessary motion and submit a sworn statement that she did not practice law during the period of her suspension.
Instead of complying with the order, Ramirez questioned the Bar Confidant’s authority and claimed that such requirements did not apply to her.
Due to her refusal to file the required sworn statement to prove that she did not practice law during her suspension, the OBC recommended that her request be denied.
The recommendation was adopted by the Court in its August 1, 2016 resolution.
On March 15, 2017, Ramirez went to the OBC to follow-up on the status of her request on the lifting of her suspension order.
When Layusa tried to explain about the Court’s August 1, 2016 resolution, the latter started berating her and made disrespectful remarks against the justices.
The incident was witnessed by OBC personnel and a member of the Supreme Court Security Division.
The Court, in a resolution dated April 19, 2017, required Ramirez to comment on the incident report submitted by the OBC, but she failed to comply.
When the Court reiterated its order for Ramirez to file her comment, she submitted instead a letter requesting for the lifting of her suspension.
The Court then referred the case to the OBC, which recommended that Ramirez’s request for lifting of suspension order be denied, and that she be disbarred.
In ruling on Ramirez’s case, the Court adopted the OBC’s recommendation, stressing that “the practice of law is not a right, but a mere privilege which is subject to the inherent regulatory power of this Court.”
It added that the lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automatic upon the expiration of the period of suspension.
“Jurisprudence requires that a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law should first request for the lifting of the order of suspension…,” the SC said.
In the case of Ramirez, the Court found that her actions warrant the ultimate penalty of disbarment based on several grounds.
First, the Court noted Ramirez brazenly insulted the Bar Confidant, an official of the Court, right within the confines of the Supreme Court.
The Court stressed that maligning the Bar Confidant is not only an attack on the Bar Confidant’s person, but an affront to the SC as an institution which Ramirez vowed to honor and respect.
In addition, Ramirez also made disparaging remarks against the Supreme Court Justices during her outburst at the OBC.
Second, Ramirez ignored the resolutions of the Court, refusing to confirm or deny the charges against her, despite the Court giving her two opportunities to do so.
Neither was there any manifestation of apology or remorse from Ramirez since the incident.
Finally, the Court also considered that this was not Ramirez’s first offense, having been previously suspended for violation of the CPR.
“All told, lawyers should always guard their language because any careless remark can ‘promote distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people’s confidence in the legal profession, and erode public respect for it’,” the SC held.
