Someone got disbarred by the Supreme Court by a unanimous (15-0) vote. From the United States where she is now based, famous Filipina author Ninotchka Rosca tweeted, “Yeah, sure, disbarment is great—but the Bible recommends stoning.” She then quoted Proverbs 19:9: “A false witness will not go unpunished and whoever pours out lies will perish.”
Most group chats are filled with rejoicing. A case of simple schadenfreude or does Larry Gadon just have so many enemies? And while we’re at it, shouldn’t we also cite the admonition in John 8:7: let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
It takes at least eight years from graduation from high school and a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice to become a lawyer. The Supreme Court recognizes that. In Martin vs. Felix Jr., the Court declared that:
“The profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It is a lifetime profession. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney may be able to amass considerable means to support himself and his family, besides the honor and prestige that accompany his office and profession.”
Disbarment is like a death sentence to a lawyer. The loss of means is bearable. The damage to one’s reputation is not.
Thus the Supreme Court requires the highest quantum of evidence to warrant disbarment. In the same case of Martin vs. Felix Jr., the Court said “proof of the highest degree” is required to deprive a lawyer of his station in life “which would result in irreparable injury.”
While they will not hesitate to punish lawyers who do not live up to their oath as members of the Bar and officers of the Court, they will, on the other hand, also “protect them from the unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants, the Court further said.
“The success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his goodwill is to be deplored. Private persons, and particularly disgruntled opponents, may not, therefore, be permitted to use the courts as vehicles to vent their rancor on members of the Bar.”
Obviously, the High Tribunal was convinced that the highest degree of proof was established to warrant Gadon’s disbarment. In an institution where members are noted for dissenting opinions, the 15-0 vote to convict is telling. Note also that the Court acted on Gadon’s case motu proprio or on its own, without any complainant.
Gadon described the decision as “harsh” and announced that he will file a motion for reconsideration. Convincing at least a majority of 15 learned justices to change their votes looks daunting but that is not the same as saying that it is impossible. Good luck to him. It will not hurt his chances of a reversal if he stops accusing the Court of rendering a “political” decision in his case.
In the meantime, he can find comfort in the trust that Malacañang announced he continues to enjoy. Whether he’s a lawyer or not is irrelevant to his position as presidential adviser for poverty alleviation, the Palace said.