THE Supreme Court has imposed the penalty of disbarment on a former lawyer who was already stricken off the roll of attorneys for another offense.
The Supreme Court en banc, in an April 25 decision, disbarred Carlos Rivera for notarizing documents without a notarial commission.
It noted that Rivera had already been disbarred in another case, but it still penalized Rivera for his latest offense, for recording purposes.
This could be taken into consideration in case Rivera would seek to be allowed to practice law again, it said.
According to the court, disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer whose name has been stricken off the roll of attorneys except for recording purposes.
“Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. Nevertheless, the corresponding penalty should be adjudged for recording purposes in Atty. Rivera’s file with the OBC, which should be taken into consideration in the event that he subsequently files a petition for reinstatement,” it said.
The court noted that Rivera had been penalized in previous years.
In 2006, he was suspended from practicing law for one year for notarizing documents without the proper authority.
In 2017, he was disbarred for simulating court documents.
In 2020, the court imposed a three year suspension on him and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for his acts of falsifying documents and once more notarizing documents without a notarial commission, according to abogado.com
The Supreme Court said that even if Rivera is already disbarred, it deems it proper to impose a penalty for his latest offense which is different from the previous infraction that caused him to be removed from the rolls. This is for the purposes of recording it in his file before the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Rivera should be issued a disbarment order for his “repeated reprehensible conduct of notarizing documents without a notarial commission,” it said.
It said it could not turn a blind eye to his repeated disregard of the rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, “which demonstrates his indifference to the values lawyers ought to live by for their continued membership in the Bar.”
