Stern warning
Aggravating the case for Pangalangan was his failure to disclose that the Ombudsman and the Senate blue ribbon committee had recommended him investigated “for possible anomalies committed while in office, during his work at the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel.â€
The court did not say when and for how long Pangalangan worked at the state institution.
Initially handling the case, the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline ordered Pangalangan suspended for two years, giving a “stern warning†for him to reform.
But the IBP Board of Governors felt such penalty would let Pangalangan off easy: it amended the ruling in 2013, ordering the lawyer’s disbarment.
The case was elevated to the high court in November 2014.
“The court defined the issue as whether respondent had committed gross immoral conduct which would merit his disbarment. Resolving this, the Court agreed with the IBP and adopted its resolution,†read the summary of the ruling.
‘Deplorable arrogance’
In upholding the IBP’s ruling, the high court also cited Pangalangan’s absence during proceedings on his case.
“In all, Atty. Pangalangan displayed a deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the petition through technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment,†the court said in its ruling.—Tarra Quismundo
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=80973.0