Just very recently, the news on the disbarment of Atty. Larry Gadon was on every media outlet. It was big news because Atty. Gadon was appointed as anti-poverty Secretary by president Ferdinand Marcos Jr a day before the unanimous decision of the SC to delete the name of Gadon from the roll of attorneys. It appears that Malacanang is standing by its decision to appoint the controversial Gadon. Gadon was a senatorial candidate during the last national elections and a staunch Marcos supporter and it is for this reason that the latest controversy came about. In a viral video, Gadon was seen and heard throwing profanities against a member of the media who asked about the tax evasion case of Marcos. The Supreme Court on its own acted on the controversial video and decided on a lot of 15-0 that Gadon should be stripped of his legal robe and that his name be removed from the roll of attorneys. To this, Gadon responded that he will be filling a motion for reconsideration and in addition allegedly said that the sound of “secretary” is better than “attorney” as if saying that he has no remorse or regret on his disbarment. For many, lawyering is the most difficult profession since one has to go through law school then hurdle one of the most difficult examinations in the Philippines. The profession is even supervised no by a department or commission but by one of the branches of the government- the Supreme Court. Over the years many lawyers found themselves in hot water over their conduct or misconduct that merited their suspension from the exercise of the profession, penalty, and others were given the ultimate penalty of disbarment. A disbarred lawyer cannot practice his profession, he cannot appear in court, and is even prohibited from attaching “Atty.” to his name. There are others however, who resorted to the filling of disciplinary actions to harass their opposing counsels. This action is frowned upon by the Supreme Court.
In one case, a lawyer filed an administrative case against a fellow lawyer then she shifted her attention to the investigating commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). By reason of the alleged incompetence and ignorance of the commissioner, a disbarment was filed against him which went to the Supreme Court. Upon investigation, it was found that the IBP commissioner was not negligent of his duties and in fact it was the complainant who has caused the delay in the resolution of the disciplinary action. The Supreme Court said in Tabuzo vs. Gomoz (A.C. No. 12005. July 23, 2018) “Obviously, the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints against fellow lawyers is antithetical to conducting oneself with courtesy, fairness and candor. It reduces the Bar’s disciplinary process into an avenue for childish bickering and trivial catfights. Realistically, filing harassment administrative complaints definitely causes undue anxiety and considerable psychological stress on wrongly charged respondents.” The Court went on to say “the complaint’s pointless perplexity was compounded by convoluted allegations which made it laborious for the Court to make coherent sense. Accordingly, the Court deems it proper to sternly warn the complainant and her collaborating counsel, Atty. Barboza, to refrain from filing and maintaining baseless administrative suits against fellow lawyers under pain of administrative sanctions.” Finally the Supreme Court made a very important reminder to all lawyers: “…lawyers should always set a good example in not using the law and the rules as weapons or tools of malicious vindication during petty squabbles as it degrades the credibility of the legal profession and tarnishes its integrity.” The disbarment case was dismissed.
