The Supreme Court has disbarred Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, finding him guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The decision in A.C. No. 14347 takes effect immediately.
The Case
The case began when Atty. Alberto filed a disbarment complaint on June 10, 2016 against Atty. Chad Rodolfo M. Miel before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), docketed as CBD Case No. 16-4982. Atty. Alberto charged Atty. Miel with violation of Sections 74 and 75 of the Corporation Code, basing the complaint in part on two criminal complaints that had already been dismissed by the City Prosecutor's Office of Mandaluyong City. The IBP-CBD found that at the time Atty. Alberto filed the disbarment complaint, he deliberately concealed the two resolutions of the City Prosecutor's Office that had cleared Atty. Miel, and instead cited the already-dismissed criminal complaints as part of the bases of his disbarment complaint.
The IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation dated June 29, 2017, recommended dismissal of the charges against Atty. Miel for lack of merit. It also found Atty. Alberto guilty of forum shopping, describing his filing of the disbarment complaint after failing before the prosecutor's office as "an underhanded attempt [to] manipulate legal procedures." The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Alberto violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his deception and dishonesty, and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six months.
The Issue
The Supreme Court considered whether Atty. Alberto's conduct — including his deliberate concealment of material facts before the IBP-CBD, his forum shopping, and his repeated defiance of orders from both the Court and the IBP — warranted disciplinary action, and if so, what penalty was appropriate given his record of prior administrative liability.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto guilty of violation of Canon II (Propriety), Sections 1, 8, and 11, as well as Canon III (Fidelity), Sections 2 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The Court's dispositive portion reads:
"ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Gerardo Wilfredo L. Alberto GUILTY of violation of Canon II (Propriety), Sections 1, 8, and 11, as well as Canon III (Fidelity), Sections 2 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision takes effect immediately."
By the Numbers
- June 10, 2016 — date Atty. Alberto filed the disbarment complaint against Atty. Miel
- June 29, 2017 — date of the IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation
- Six months — suspension recommended by the IBP-CBD against Atty. Alberto
- Five years — suspension imposed on Atty. Alberto in A.C. No. 12289 (April 2, 2019, Atty. Muntuerto, Jr. v. Atty. Alberto)
- Two years — suspension imposed on Atty. Alberto in A.C. No. 6766 (August 4, 2021, Anacay v. Atty. Alberto)
- PHP 1,000.00 — fine imposed on Atty. Alberto for failure to file his Comment in A.C. No. 6766, which he also failed to pay
- September 9, 2009 — date Atty. Alberto was arrested and detained at the NBI-Tagaytay, Cavite District Office
The Court's Reasoning
The Court took into account Atty. Alberto's prior administrative liabilities. In A.C. No. 12289, the Court En Banc had already suspended him for five years for notarizing documents without a notarial commission, allowing a non-lawyer to sign a court motion, repeatedly failing to indicate his MCLE compliance number in pleadings, and defying IBP directives. In A.C. No. 6766, the Court's Second Division suspended him for two years for obtaining loans from an elderly blind client through guile and trickery, failing to return the amounts despite demands, and repeatedly ignoring Court resolutions — conduct that led to his arrest and detention by the NBI.
The Court noted that Atty. Alberto had been sternly warned in both prior cases that a similar violation would merit a more severe penalty, yet his defiance persisted. The Court stated that his "underhanded tactics and sly manipulations coupled with his blatant and repeated disregard of the orders of the Court and the IBP, clearly transgressed the lines of propriety." The Court further stated it "cannot turn a blind eye on Atty. Alberto's unfortunate lack of remorse and abject arrogance as evinced by his constant deceitful conduct, and disobedience of the notices and orders of the Court and the IBP," and that "[d]isbarment, no less, is warranted under the circumstances."
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, A.C. No. 14347. This report is based solely on the published decision text.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.