In the Matter of JAMES JOSEPH HAMM

Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-04-0079-M211 Ariz 458, 123 p.3d 652, 2005
Petitioners:
James Hamm
Petition:
To review the recommendation provided by Committee on Character and Fitness (the
Committee)denying the
Petitioner’s
application for admission to the State Bar of Arizona (the Bar).
FACTS:
- Hamm, the Petitioner, was sentenced to life in prison for one-count of first degree
murder to which he pled guilty. Prior to serving his sentence, Hamm had been
separated from his wife with whom he had ason and had supported himself by selling
and using marijuana, other drugs and drinking alcohol.- The crime for which Hamm
was sentenced to life imprisonment is for the murder of Morley and Well, who were
killed by Hamm along with two accomplices, Garland Wells and Bill Reeser. The three
robbed and killed Morley and Well by shooting them with a gun and leaving their bodies
lying in the dessert.- While in prison, Hamm exhibited good conduct and became
a model prisoner which earned him a conditioned parole. Hamm was released after
serving nearly seventeen years in prison. From conditioned parole, Hamm absolutely
discharged on December 2001.- While on parole, Hamm graduated from the Arizona
State University College of Law. In July 1999,Hamm passed the Arizona bar
examination and, in 2004, filed his Character and Fitness Report with the
Committee.- In its report, the Committee stated that, in reaching its conclusions,
it considered the following:
 
Hamm’s unlawful conduct, which included the commission of two violent “execution
style ”murders and his testimony as to the facts surrounding the murders

 
Hamm’s omissions on his Application and his testimony in explaining his failure to
disclose all required information.

 
Hamm’s neglect of his financial responsibilities and/or violation of a longstanding child
supportcourt order and his testimony as to his failure to comply with the court order.
 
Hamm’s mental or emotional instability impairing his ability to perform the functions of
anattorney including his testimony as to any diagnosis and treatment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Hamm can be admitted to the Bar.
HELD:
No, the Supreme Court decided that Hamm failed to prove his burden that he is of good
moral characteron the following grounds:- Hamm failed to show rehabilitation from
past criminal conduct by not accepting full responsibility forserious criminal misconduct -
Staples’ murder although he accepted responsibility for the death of 
Morley.
 
- Hamm was not completely up-front in his testimony to the murder of which he claims
that he onlyintended to rob and not to kill. This is contrary to the facts
 –
he accepted the gun and brings it with himin the car, shot Morley without attempting
robbery and shot hit again to ensure he is dead and shotStaples when he attempted to
escape.
 

Hamm’s failure to fulfill his long overdue obligation to support his child who he was
aware existed.
 

Hamm’s failure to disclose the incident involving him and his wife, Donna, when he
submitted his
application to the Committee. This incident gave rise to Hamm being questioned by the
law enforcerswhich should have been reflected by Hamm in the application
-
Hamm’s act of quoting lines from Supreme Courts’
decision and use the same in the introduction for hispetition.
 

ROLLY PENTECOSTES v. ATTY. HERMENEGILDO

529 SCRA 146 (2007)

The clerk of court has the duty to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits and
public property.

Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court of

the Regional Trial Court North Cotabato, was administratively charged with grave
misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public officer for the loss of a motorcycle-subject
matter of a criminal case which was placed under his care and custody.

The administrative case against Atty. Hermenegildo stemmed from a sworn affidavit
complaint filed on November 11, 2004 by Rolly Pentecostes, the owner of a Kawasaki
motorcycle, which was recovered by members of the Philippine National Police of
M’lang, North Cotabato from suspected carnappers.

The release order for the motorcycle was issued but Pentecostes refused to receive it
because it was already ―cannibalized‖ and unserviceable.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC,
Kabacan, North Cotabato, for investigation, report and recommendation. Judge Rabang
recommended that the administrative complaint against Atty. Hermenegildo be
dismissed because there was no proof of Pentecostes’ claim that the vehicle was
―cannibalized‖ from the time that it was under Atty. Hermenegildo’s custody until its
transfer to Philippine National Police (PNP) of Kabacan. The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Atty. Hermenegildo is guilty of misconduct

HELD:

It is the duty of the clerk of court to keep safely all records, papers, files, exhibits and
public property committed to his charge.[12] Section D (4), Chapter VII of the 1991
Manual For Clerks of Court (now Section E[2], paragraph 2.2.3, Chapter VI of the 2002
Revised Manual for Clerks of Court) which provides all exhibits used as evidence and
turned over to the court and before the case/s involving such evidence shall have been
terminated shall be under the custody and safekeeping of the Clerkof Court.

From the above provisions, it is clear that as clerk of court of the RTC, Kabacan, Atty.
Hermenegildo was charged with the custody and safekeeping of Pentecostes’
motorcycle, and to keep it until the termination of the case, barring circumstances that
would justify its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon the prior authority of the trial court.

The Court said ―no explanation was offered by Atty. Hermenegildo, however, for

turning over the motorcycle. But whatever the reason was, Atty. Hermenegildo was
mandated to secure prior consultations with and approval of the trial court.‖

Moreover disconcerting is the fact that the acknowledgment receipt evidencing the
turnover of the motorcycle from the trial court to the Kabacan police station was lost
from the records, with nary a lead as to who was responsible for it. These circumstance
are viewed with disfavor as it reflects badly on the safekeeping of court records, a duty
entrusted to Atty. Hermenegildo as clerk of court.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are essential and ranking
officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital to the prompt and
proper administration of justice. Their duties include the efficient recording, filing and
management of court records and, as previously pointed out, the safekeeping of exhibits
and public property committed to their charge.
FATHER RANHILIO AQUINO et al V ATTY EDWIN PASCUA A.C. No.
5095, November 28, 2007

FACTS: 

Father Ranhilio Aquino, as the Academic head of the Philippine Judiciary Academy, together
with other complainants filed a letter-complaint against Attorney Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public
for violation of the Notarial Practice Law. In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that
Atty. Pascua falsified two notarized documents in which he filed with the Civil Service
Commission. Atty. Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents, but they were not
entered in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal secretary. The case was referred
to the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation, report and recommendation. The Office of
the Bar Confidant found that Fr. Ranhilio and the other complainants are, therefore, correct in
maintaining that Atty. Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned affidavit-
complaints, a clear dishonesty on his part not only as a Notary Public, but also as a member of
the Bar. 

ISSUE: 

WON Atty. Pascua is guilty of Misconduct in the performance of his duties for failing to register
in his Notarial Register the affidavit-complaints. 

HELD: 

Yes. After a close review of the records of this case, the court resolved to adopt the findings of
facts and conclusion of law by the Office of the Bar Confidant. They found that Atty. Pascua
guilty of misconduct in the performance of his duties for failing to register in his Notarial
Register the affidavit-complaints of Joseph B. Acorda and Remigio B. Domingo. Misconduct
generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose. Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but
due to oversight of his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His
failure to enter into his notarial register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a
dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff. Under
the notarial law, the notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature
of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing,
swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument. Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or
entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law is a
ground for revocation of his commission. In the present case, considering that this is Atty.
Pascua’s first offense, court believed that the imposition of a three-month suspension from the
practice of law upon him is in order. Likewise, since his offense is a ground for revocation of
notarial commission, the same should also be imposed upon him. 

DECISION: 

WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for three (3) months with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely. His notarial commission, if still existing, is
ordered REVOKED.
IN RE: JUDGE QUITAIN JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007

FACTS: 

Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 10, Davao City. Subsequent thereto, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
received confidential information that administrative and criminal charges were filed against
Judge Quitain in his capacity as then Assistant Regional Director, National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) and as a result of which he was dismissed from the service. The Deputy of Court
Administrator (DCA) required Judge Quitain to explain the alleged misrepresentation and
deception he committed before the JBC. 

Judge Quitain denied having committed any misrepresentation before the JBC. Respondent
explained that during the investigation of his administrative case by the NAPOLCOM Ad Hoc
Committee, one of its members suggested to him that if he resigns from the government service,
he will no longer be prosecuted; that following such suggestion, he tendered his irrevocable
resignation from NAPOLCOM; that he did not disclose the case in his PDS because he was of the
honest belief that he had no more pending administrative case by reason of his resignation; that
his resignation amounted to an automatic dismissal of his administrative case considering that
the issues raised therein became moot and academic; and that had he known that he would be
dismissed from the service, he should not have applied for the position of a judge since he knew
he would never be appointed. 

The court contends that Judge Quitain deliberately did not disclose the fact that he was
dismissed from the government service. At the time he filled up and submitted his Personal Data
Sheet with the Judicial and Bar Council, he had full knowledge of the subject administrative
case, as well as Administrative Order No. 183 dismissing him from the government service. 

ISSUES: 

1. WON the resignation of the judge renders the administrative proceedings against him moot
and academic. 

2. WON the judge be excused of his omission in the PDS. 

HELD: 

1. No. Respondents contentions utterly lack merit. As a member of the Bar, he should know that
his resignation from the NAPOLCOM would not obliterate any administrative liability he may
have incurred, much less, would it result to the automatic dismissal of the administrative case
filed against him. The acceptance of his resignation is definitely without prejudice to the
continuation of the administrative case filed against him. If such would be the case, anyone
charged administratively could easily escape from administrative sanctions by the simple
expedient of resigning from the service. 

Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the Court without prejudice does
not render moot and academic the instant administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court
had at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent judge by his resignation and its consequent acceptance without prejudice by this
Court, has ceased to be in office during the pendency of this case. The Court retains its authority
to pronounce the respondent official innocent or guilty of the charges against him. 

2. No. Respondent is guilty of dishonesty. Dishonesty means disposition to lie, cheat or defraud;
unworthiness; lack of integrity. The court cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and
integrity on the part of all those who are in the service of the Judiciary. They have often stressed
that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk of
court, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. The court
condemns, and will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability
and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. 

DECISION: 

WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME V. QUITAIN is guilty of grave
misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not resigned
during the pendency of this case, he is hereby meted the penalty of a fine of P40,000.00. It
appearing that he has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges, if any, the
Court likewise ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except earned leave credits which
Judge Quitain may be entitled to, and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement
and appointment to any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including
government-owned and/or controlled corporations.

RODOLFO M. BERNARDO v ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA Adm. Case No. 2984.

August 31, 2007
FACTS: 

Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia of several
administrative offenses such as misappropriating and converting to his personal use the money
entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on Bernardo’s property; falsification of
documents such as the Special Power of Attorney, Deed of Sale and Deed of Assignment and
lastly, issuing a check knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan
obtained from the former in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing said check
with others known also to be insufficiently funded. The Supreme Court En Banc rendered a
Decision Per Curiam which found the respondent Atty. Mejia guilty of all the charges against
him and imposed on him the penalty of Disbarment. Respondent files a Petition praying that he
be allowed to reengage in the practice of law however, the Supreme Court En Banc denied his
petition for reinstatement. The respondent filed again this present petition for review of his
Administrative case with a plea for reinstatement in the practice of law. In the petition, Mejia
acknowledged his indiscretions in the law profession. At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for
forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has
suffered enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and
redeem the indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment. 

ISSUE: 

WON the respondent shall be reinstated. 

HELD: 
The Court granted the respondent’s petition. Fifteen years has passed since he was punished
with the severe penalty of disbarment. Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for
Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced
years. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he
has shown remorse. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring
officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its
purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct
offenders. However, the petitioner is reminded 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
continuing requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice law. 

DECISION: 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys
by Ismael F. Mejia is hereby GRANTED.