Source: https://adrianantazo.wordpress.

com/2018/04/12/valencia-v-antiniw-a-c-no-
1302-a-c-no-1391-a-c-no-1543/

CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA, complainant, vs. ATTY.

DIONISIO C. ANTINIW, respondent.

Facts: Respondent was DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered
stricken off from the roll of attorneys. Subsequently, after his disbarment, the
respondent consistently yearly appealed to the court his reinstatement and that he
showed show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and
capacity to live up once again to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of
every member of the bar and officer of the court. after multiple manifestation,
resolution and testimony of various civic, humanitarian and religious groups attesting
to the reformed good moral character of the respondent, after 15 years of disbarment,
the court ask the Commission on Bar Discipline for comments and resolution which
was sent to the IBP Board of Governors for approval.

Issue: Whether the Respondent how is Disbarred to practice law and who
consistently showed show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his
willingness and capacity to live up once again to the exacting standards of conduct
demanded of every member of the bar and officer of the court is eligible to be
readmitted in the bar.

Held: Yes, During respondent’s disbarment for more than fifteen (15) years to date
for his professional infraction, he has been persistent in reiterating his apologies and
pleas for reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show
that he has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic and humanitarian
activities and unblemished record as an elected public servant, as attested to by
numerous civic and professional organizations, government institutions, public officials
and members of the judiciary. Moreover, it is well-settled that the objective of a
disciplinary case is not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect the
dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct
or inefficiency of officers of the court. Restorative justice, not retribution, is our goal in
disciplinary proceedings. Guided by this doctrine and considering the evidence
submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contrition and his being again
worthy of membership in the legal profession, the Court finds that it is now time to lift
herein respondent’s disbarment and reinstate him to the august halls of the legal
profession, but with the following reminder That practice of law is a privilege burdened
with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of
the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal
profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the
bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of
the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to
discipline its members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well. That is why
respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members. Of all classes and
professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws, as he is their

1
sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the
laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues
recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate
and dangerous elements of the body politic.

Source: https://adrianantazo.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/valencia-v-antiniw-a-c-no-
1302-a-c-no-1391-a-c-no-1543/