THIRDDIVISION

[A.C.No.10372,July30,2014]
AURORAR.LADIM,ANGELITOA.ARDIENTE,ANDDANILOS.
DELACRUZV.ATTY.PERLAD.RAMIREZ.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
July30,2014,whichreadsasfollows:
"A.C.No.10372(AuroraR.Ladim,AngelitoA.Ardiente,andDaniloS.
de la Cruz v. Atty. Perla D. Ramirez). On March 23, 2007, a verified
complaint[1] for disbarment was filed against Atty. Perla D. Ramirez by
AuroraR.Ladim,AngelitoA.Ardiente,andDaniloS.delaCruz,whowereall
employees of Lirio Apartments Condominium in Makati City, where Atty.
Ramirezresides.[2]
Thecomplaintstemmedfromvariousincidentsfrom1990to2007involving
complainants,otheremployees,lessees,andunitownersofLirioApartments
Condominium and Atty. Ramirez.[3] The tenants alleged that Atty. Ramirez
keptasking"impertinentpersonalquestions,"[4]knockingontheirdoors,and
using offensive language.[5] Another tenant complained that Atty. Ramirez
kept entering units undergoing repairs "[b]ecause of her fear that people
[were]damagingthebuilding."[6]The"keyshanging[on]thedoor"[7]ofone
unitwerelostthedaysheenteredtheunit.[8]
The latest incident involved Atty. Ramirez shouting at the condominium
employees and using offensive language.[9] She accused the maintenance
personnel of destroying the building and the security guards of trying to
destroy her car.[10] She also started shouting that the condominium
residents were prostitutes.[11] The condominium employees tried to pacify
her, even calling her brother, Dr. Nicholas Ramirez, to intervene.[12] "Dr.
Ramirez assured [them] that he will get in touch"[13] with Atty. Ramirez's
friend,MalouJacob,sinceMalouwastheonlyonewhocouldpacifyher.[14]
Since 2004, Atty. Ramirez has refused to pay any of her association dues.
[15] She claimed that no one has been leasing her unit[16] and argued that

theassociationduesshouldbepaidonlybythosewholeasetheirunits.[17]
Atty.Ramirez,ontheotherhand,filedseveralcasesbeforetheOfficeofthe
City Prosecutor against the condominium employees, accusing them of

malicious mischief, grave oral defamation, slander, and threats.[18] All the
casesweredismissedforlackofmerit.[19]
In her position paper[20] before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Atty. Ramirez did not admit or deny the allegations in her complaint but
stated her long years of service as a government lawyer.[21] She also
expressedthat:
I do not believe that the three complainants are my equal,
therefore,forreasonsabovestated,[sic]Imovefortheoutright
dismissalofthecomplaintscharge[sic]againstme.[22]
Inhisreportandrecommendation,[23] the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
InvestigatingCommissionerEldridC.AntiquierafoundAtty.Ramirezguiltyof
violating Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommendedthepenaltyofreprimand.[24]
Commissioner Antiquiera found that "respondent's language and choice of
words [show] her lack of respect and decorum in her dealings with other
people."[25] He also found that Atty. Ramirez "largely relied on her legal
expertise and experience to demand respect from others but she never
[gave]themafairtreatment."[26]
The Commissioner, however, took note of the "forgetful, suspicious, and
fearful attitude"[27] of Atty. Ramirez and complainants' belief that
"something must be wrong with her mentally."[28] He concluded that her
mentalissuesmayexplainheractionsand"shemaynot[have]deliberately
intend[ed]toinjureotherpeople."[29]
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, in its Resolution
No.XX2013848,[30]datedJune22,2013,adoptedandapprovedthereport
andrecommendationoftheCommissioner.
While we adopt the findings of fact of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
wedonotbelievethatamerereprimandisenoughtopunishAtty.Ramirez
forheractions.
AsthiscourtstatedinBernardov.Atty.Mejia: [31]
[T]he practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance
ofthehighestdegreeofmoralityandfaithfulcompliancewiththe
rules of the legal profession are the continuing requirements for
enjoyingtheprivilegetopracticelaw.[32]
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred from the practice of law for gross
misconduct.Rule138,Section27oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be

disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralconduct,orbyreason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admissiontopractice,orforawilfuldisobedienceappearingasan
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
Lawyersshouldtreateveryonewithkindnessandrespect,whethertheyare
colleagues, members of the court, or the public in general. Anything less
wouldbeconductunbecomingofoneinthelegalprofession.
InTapucarv.Atty.Tapucar: [33]
As this Court often reminds members of the Bar, they must live up to the
standards and norms expected of the legal profession, by upholding the
ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility
always.Lawyersmustmaintainahighstandardoflegalproficiency,aswell
as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all
times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community
approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct both public and
private fails this scrutiny would have to be disciplined and, after
appropriateproceedings,penalizedaccordingly.[34](Emphasissupplied)
Asalawyer,Atty.Ramirezissworntoupholdnotonlyheroathbutalsothe
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 7.03 of Canon 7
states:
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORTTHEACTIVITIESOFTHEINTEGRATEDBAR.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discreditofthelegalprofession.
Instead of answering the allegations concerning her rude and disrespectful
attitude,Atty.RamirezhaughtilyaskedtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
todismissthecomplaintbecausecomplainantswerenotherequal,referring
to them as "clerk, janitor, and maintenance man,"[35] respectively. Worse,
she flaunted her credentials,[36] believing that being a former government
lawyerallowshertodisregardthetenetsofherprofession.
Her arrogance manifests her lack of moral fitness to practice law. Her
disrespect toward her neighbors and toward complainants shows a blatant

disregardtothedignityandintegrityofthelegalprofession.Atty.Ramirez's
actionsdoherprofessionadisserviceand,assuch,apenaltyhigherthana
reprimandisinorder.
"The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor."
[37]Takingintoaccountheradvancedageandher"allegedmentalissues,"
[38] we find that the appropriate penalty is suspension for six (6) months

fromthepracticeoflaw.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Perla D. Ramirez, having been found in violation of
Canon7.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,isSUSPENDED from
thepracticeoflawforsix(6)months,withasternwarningthatarepetition
ofthesameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
LetacopyofthisresolutionbefurnishedtotheOfficeoftheBarConfidantto
be entered into respondent's records as attorney. Copies shall likewise be
furnishedtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandtheOfficeoftheCourt
Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned. (Villarama, Jr., J.,
designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division per
SpecialOrderNo.1691datedMay22,2014.)
SOORDERED."
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd.)WILFREDOV.LAPITAN
DivisionClerkofCourt
[1]Rollo,pp.29.
[2]Id.at84.
[3]Id.at36.
[4]Id.at3.
[5]Id.
[6]Id.
[7]Id.
[8]Id.
[9]Id.at5.
[10]Id.

[11]Id.at6.
[12]Id.
[13]Id.
[14]Id.
[15]Id.at85.
[16]Id.at125.
[17]Id.at7.
[18]Id.at4756.
[19]Id.
[20]Id.at159161.
[21]Id.at160.
[22]Id.
[23]Id.at210215.
[24]Id.at215.
[25]Id.at214.
[26]Id.
[27]Id.
[28]Id.
[29]Id.
[30]Id.at209.
[31]558Phil.398(2007)[PerJ.Nachura,EnBanc].
[32] Id. at 402, citing Tolentino v. Atty Mendoza, 483 Phil. 546, 559 (2004)

[Per J. AustriaMartinez, En Banc] Barrientos v. Atty. LibiranMeteoro, 480

Phil. 661, 674675 (2004) [Per J. AustriaMartinez, Second Division]
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690707, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA
132,135[PerJ.Campos,Jr.,EnBanc].
[33]355Phil.66(1998)[PerCuriam,EnBanc].

[34]Id.at73.
[35]Rollo,pp.159160.
[36]Id.at160.
[37] Zaguirre v. Atty. Castillo, 446 Phil. 861, 871 (2003) [Per Curiam, En

Banc],citingNakpilv.Valdes,350Phil.412,430(1998)[PerJ.Puno,Second
Division].
[38]Rollo,p.214.

Source:SupremeCourtELibrary
Thispagewasdynamicallygenerated
bytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)