Aurora Ladim vs Perla Ramirez

A.C. No. 10372 – Legal Ethics – Rule 138; Sec. 27 – Disbarment; Failure to Comply – Required Sworn Statement of Non-Practice of Law before Re-admission

Aurora Ladim and several of her co-employees filed an administrative case against Atty. Perla Ramirez for the latter’s ill-treatment against them and other tenants in the condominium where Ramirez resides and where Aurora works. As a result, Ramirez was suspended for six months by the SC in 2014. Ramirez was able to receive the notice of her suspension in July 2014 and September 2014.

In 2016, Ramirez went to the SC to move for the lifting of her suspension. Atty. Cristina Layusa of the OBC spoke with Ramirez. Atty. Layusa explained to Ramirez that she needs to submit a sworn statement with supporting documents that she did not practice law during her suspension. Ramirez refused to comply and insisted that those requirements are not applicable to her.

In 2017, Ramirez went to the OBC to follow-up on the lifting of her suspension and Atty. Layusa again reiterated the need for Ramirez to submit a sworn statement. Ramirez, in a disrespectful and arrogant tone, directed Atty. Layusa to read the entire records of the case from page one to end. Atty. Layusa was caught by surprise of Ramirez’s demeanor, and she told her not to insult her. Ramirez continued to speak in an offensive tone and uttered: “BRUHA KA; OO, BRUHA KA; PUTANG INA MO; YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION; KONTING BRAINS NAMAN; CLERK KA LANG; YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR WORK; YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR JOB; ARE THOSE JUSTICES PASSERS UNDER R.A. 1080?” This was witnessed by OBC personnel.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ramirez should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. Sec. 27, Rule 138 provides:

Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as Attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an 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.

In this case, Ramirez is being required to file a sworn statement before her suspension may be lifted.

Ramirez brazenly insulted the Bar Confidant, an official of this Court, in front of her staff in the confines of SC. The OBC acts on behalf of the SC in receiving and processing administrative complaints against lawyers. Consequently, maligning the Bar Confidant is not only an ad hominem attack on her person, but an affront to the SC as an institution which Ramirez vowed to honor and respect. Ramirez also made disparaging remarks against the Justices of the SC during. Her statements showed her utter lack of reverence to the SC which is the very institution that gave her the privilege to practice law.

Read full text.