teresita d. santeco

8/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco

1/50

EN BANC

TERESITA D. SANTECO,Complainant,

A.C. No. 5834(formerly CBD-01-861)

- versus -

Present:

CORONA, C.J.,

CARPIO,

CARPIO MORALES,

VELASCO, JR.,

NACHURA,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BRION,

PERALTA,BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO,ABAD,

VILLARAMA, JR.,PEREZ,

MENDOZA, andSERENO,JJ.

ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE,Respondent. Promulgated:

February 22, 2011

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

PER CURIAM :

The case originated from an administrative complaint[1]filed by Teresita D.Santeco against respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance for mishandling Civil Case No.97-275, an action to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for

reconveyance and damages, which complainant had filed before the Regional TrialCourt (RTC) of Makati City.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn1


2/50

In anEn BancDecision[2]

dated December 11, 2003, the Court found

respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her clientscause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at

her without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended from the

practice of law for a period of five years, and was likewise directed to return tocomplainant, within ten (10) days from notice, the amount of P3,900.00 which

complainant paid her for the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court ofAppeals (CA), which she never filed.

Respondent moved to reconsider[3]

the decision but her motion was denied ina Resolution

[4]dated February 24, 2004.

Subsequently, while respondents five-year suspension from the practice of

law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge of the RTC

of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report[5]dated November 12, 2007 tothen Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock informing the latter that respondenthad appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she misrepresented

herself as Atty. Liezl Tanglao. When her opposing counsels confronted her andshowed to the court a certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted

and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. Avance, but qualified that she was onlysuspended for three years and that her suspension has already been lifted. Judge

Amog-Bocar further stated that respondent nonetheless withdrew her appearancefrom all the cases. Attached to the letter-report were copies of several pertinent

orders from her court confirming the report.

Acting on Judge Amog-Bocars letter-report, the Court, in aResolution

[6]dated April 9, 2008, required respondent to comment within ten (10)

days from notice. Respondent, however, failed to file the required comment.On June 10, 2009, the Court reiterated the directive to comment; otherwise the case

would be deemed submitted for resolution based on available records on file withthe Court. Still, respondent failed to comply despite notice. Accordingly, this

Court issued a Resolution[7]

on September 29, 2009 finding respondent guilty ofindirect contempt. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found guilty of indirect contemptand is hereby FINEDin the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)

and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions

will be dealt with more severely.

Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn3


3/50

of this Resolution, and be it duly recorded in the personal file of respondent Atty.

Luna B. Avance.[8]

A copy of the September 29, 2009 Resolution was sent to respondents

address of record at 26-B Korea Ave., Ph. 4, Greenheights Subd.,Nangka, Marikina City by registered mail. The same was delivered by Postman

Hermoso Mesa, Jr. and duly received by one Lota Cadete on October 29, 2009, per

certification[9]

dated February 3, 2011by Postmaster Rufino C. Robles of the

Marikina Central Post Office.

Despite due notice, however, respondent failed to pay the fine imposed in

the September 29, 2009 Resolution based on a certification issued by Araceli C.Bayuga, Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Cash Collection and Disbursement

Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office. The said certification reads:

This is to certify that as per records of the Cashier Division, there is norecord of payment made by one ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE in the amount of

Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as payment for COURT FINE imposed in

the resolution dated 29 Sept. 2009 Re: Adm. Case No. 5834.[10]

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a

member of the bar.As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and

authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shownby a lawyers obedience to court orders and processes.[11]

Here, respondents conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her asan officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying this Courts

orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice

despite the five-year suspension order against her and even misrepresented herselfto be another person in order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice

ordered to comment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing

was heard from her despite receipt of two Resolutions from this Court. Neither did

she pay the P30,000.00 fine imposed in the September 29, 2009 Resolution.

We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross

misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyers suspension oreven disbarment.

[12] Sebastian v. Bajar

[13]teaches
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn9


4/50

Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme

Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents conduct

indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution is not to beconstrued as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially,

inadequately, or selectively. Respondents obstinate refusal to comply with the

Courts orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it alsounderscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders which is only toodeserving of reproof.

[14]

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar maybe disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct and/or

for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;

grounds therefor. 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 misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason

of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of theoath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful

disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,or for corruptly or

willfully 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 orthrough paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.)

In repeatedly disobeying this Courts orders, respondent proved herself

unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent tothe need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officerof the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY.LUNA B. AVANCEis

hereby DISBARRED for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawfulorders of a superior court. Her name is ORDERED STRICKENOFFfrom the

Roll of Attorneys.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondents personal record withthe Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts of the land.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/5834.htm#_ftn15


5/50

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

EN BANC

CONRADO QUE,Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA,

JR.

Respondent.

A.C. No. 7054PUNO, C J.,

CARPIO,CORONA,

CARPIO MORALES,

CHICO-NAZARIO,VELASCO, JR.,NACHURA,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,BRION,

PERALTA,BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO,ABAD, and

VILLARAMA, JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:

December 4, 2009x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

D E C I S I O NPER CURIAM:

In a complaint for disbarment,[1]Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty.

Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on Bar
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn1


6/50

Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of the

Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

(1)The respondents abuse of court remedies and processes by filing a

petition for certioraribefore the Court of Appeals (CA), twopetitions for annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court

(RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC andlastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC

(collectively,subject cases) to assail and overturn the finaljudgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court[2](MeTC) and RTC[3]in

the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondents

clients. The respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the issue oflack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing fully-well that

these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The

respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and hissiblings titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainercase;

(2)The respondents commission of forum-shopping by filing thesubject cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient

administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the

right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC andRTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case;

(3)The respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversaryand the courts by resorting to falsehood and deception to misguide,

obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. Therespondent asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of

the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment by

fabricating an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in

open court which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed bythe respondents in the said case. The complainant alleged that the

respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation; the

respondent also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) insupporting the above falsehood.[4]

(4)The respondentswillful and revolting falsehood that unjustlymaligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late

Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel of therespondents clients.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn2


7/50

(5)The respondents deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorizedappearances in court in the petition for annulment of judgment for

15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased;

(6)The respondents willful and fraudulent appearance in the second

petition for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic ofthe Philippines without being authorized to do so.

Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-two

(52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever given

to him.

The CBD required the respondent to answer the complaint.

In his Answer,[5] the respondent declared that he is a member of theKalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handlespro bono cases for the

underprivileged, the less fortunate, the homeless and those in the marginalizedsector in Metro Manila. He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by other

KDC members. One of these cases was the unlawful detainer case handled by thelate Atty. Catolico where the complainant and his siblings were the plaintiffs

and the respondents present clients were the defendants.

With respect to paragraph 1 of the disbarment complaint, the respondentprofessed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions complained

of; he filed these petitions to protect the interests of his clients in their property.The respondent asserted that these petitions were all based on valid grounds

the lack of jurisdictionof the MeTC and the RTC over the underlying unlawful

detainer case, the extrinsic fraud committed by the late Atty. Catolico, andthe extrinsic fraud committed by the complainant and his family against his

clients; he discovered that the allegedly detained property did not really belong to

the complainant and his family but is a forest land. The respondent also asserted

that his resort to a petition for annulment of judgment and a petition for declaratoryrelief to contest the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC were all parts of his

legal strategy to protect the interests of his clients.

On the allegations of falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the order

of dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment (covered by paragraph 3 ofthe disbarment complaint), the respondent maintained that his allegations were


8/50

based on his observations and the notes he had taken during the proceedings on

what the presiding judge dictated in open court.

The respondent denied that he had made any unauthorized appearance in

court (with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the disbarment complaint). He claimedthat the 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 were impleaded by

inadvertence; he immediately rectified his error by dropping them from thecase. On the petition for annulment of judgment, the respondent claimed that a

majority (31 out of 49) of the litigants who signed the certification constitutedsufficient compliance with the rules on forum-shopping. The respondent likewise

denied having represented the Republic of the Philippines in the second petition for

annulment of title. The respondent pointed out that there was no allegationwhatsoever that he was the sole representative of both the complainants (his

clients) and the Republic of the Philippines. The respondent pointed out that the

petition embodied a request to the Office of the Solicitor General to represent hisclients in the case.[6]

The respondent submitted that he did not commit any illegal, unlawful,

unjust, wrongful or immoral acts towards the complainant and his siblings. Hestressed that he acted in good faith in his dealings with them and his conduct was

consistent with his sworn duty as a lawyer to uphold justice and the law and to

defend the interests of his clients. The respondent additionally claimed that thedisbarment case was filed because the complainants counsel, Atty. Cesar P. Uy

(Atty. Uy), had an axe to grind against him.

Lastly, the respondent posited in his pleadings[7]before the IBP that the

present complaint violated the rule on forum shoppingconsidering that the subjectcases were also the ones on which a complaint was filed against him in CBD Case

No. 03-1099 filed by Atty. Uy before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline. The

respondent also posited that the present complaint was filed to harass, ridicule and

defame his good name and reputation and, indirectly, to harass his clients who aremarginalized members of the KDC.

The Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

Except for the last charge of unauthorized appearance on behalf of 52

litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762, Investigating Commissioner Renato G.Cunanan[8](Investigating Commissioner Cunanan) found all the charges against the

respondent meritorious. In his Report and Recommendation, he stated:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn6


9/50

While an attorney admittedly has the solemn duty to defend and protect

the cause and rights of his client with all the fervor and energy within his

command, yet, it is equally true that it is the primary duty of the lawyer to defendthe dignity, authority and majesty of the law and the courts which enforce it. A

lawyer is not at liberty to maintain and defend the cause of his clients thru means,

inconsistent with truth and honor. He may not and must not encouragemultiplicity of suits or brazenly engage in forum-shopping.[9]

On the first charge on abuse of court processes, Investigating Commissioner

Cunanan noted the unnecessary use by the respondent of legal remedies to forestallthe execution of the final decisions of the MTC and the RTC in the unlawful

detainer case against his clients.[10]

On the second charge, the Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act of

the respondent in filing two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for

annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory relief were all doneto prevent the execution of the final judgment in the unlawful detainer case andconstituted prohibited forum-shopping.[11]

On the third and fourth charges, Investigating Commissioner Cunanan foundample evidence showing that the respondent was dishonest in dealing with the

court as shown in his petition for annulment of judgment; he resorted to falsities

and attributed acts to Atty. Catolico and to the presiding judge, all of which wereuntrue.[12]

On the fifth and sixth charges, the Investigating Commissioner disregardedthe respondents explanation that he had no intention to represent without authority

15 of the litigants (three of whom were already deceased) in the petition forannulment of judgment (Civil Case No. Q-01-45556). To the Investigating

Commissioner, the respondent merely glossed over the representation issue by

claiming that the authority given by a majority of the litigants complied with the

certification of non-forum shopping requirement. The Investigating Commissionerlikewise brushed aside the respondents argument regarding his misrepresentation

in the second complaint for annulment of title since he knew very well that only

the Solicitor General can institute an action for reversion on behalf of the Republicof the Philippines. Despite this knowledge, the respondent solely signed the

amended complaint for and on behalf of his clients and of the Republic.

The Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, throughits Resolution No. XVII-2005-164 on CBD Case No. 03-1100, adopted and

approved the Report and Recommendation of Investigating CommissionerCunanan and recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn9


10/50

law for two (2) years.[13]On reconsideration, the Board of Governors reduced the

respondents suspension from the practice of law to one (1) year.[14]

The Issue

The case poses to us the core issues of whether the respondent can be held

liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct, and thepenalty these transgressions should carry.

The Courts Ruling

Except for the penalty, we agree with the Report and Recommendation

of Investigating Commissioner Cunanan and the Board of Governors of the

IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.

We take judicial notice that this disbarment complaint is not the only one sofar filed involving the respondent; another complaint invoking similar grounds has

previously been filed. InPlus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty.

Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.,[15]we suspended the respondent from the practice of lawfor his willful and intentional falsehood before the court; for misuse of court

procedures and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and for

collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. We initially imposeda suspension of two (2) years, but in an act of leniency subsequently reduced the

suspension to six (6) months.[16]

Abuse of court procedures and processes

The following undisputed facts fully support the conclusion that the

respondent is guilty of serious misconduct for abusing court procedures and

processes to shield his clients from the execution of the final judgments of the

MeTC and RTC in the unlawful detainer case against these clients:

First, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari (docketed as CA-G.R. SP

No. 53892) with prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction and temporaryrestraining order to question the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC for lack of

jurisdiction. In dismissing the respondents petition, the CA held:

Even for the sake of argument considering that the petition case be the

proper remedy, still it must be rejected for failure of petitioners to satisfactorily


11/50

demonstrate lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court of

Quezon City over the ejectment case.[17]

Second, notwithstanding the CAs dismissal of the petition forcertiorari, therespondent again questioned the MeTCsand the RTCs lack of jurisdiction over

the unlawful detainer case in a petition for annulment of judgment (docketed asCivil Case No. Q-01-45556) before the RTC with an ancillary prayer for the grant

of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The RTC dismissedthis petition on the basis of the motion to dismiss filed.[18]

Third, the respondent successively filed two petitions (docketed as Civil

Case No. Q-99-38780 and Civil Case No. Q-02-46885) for annulment of the

complainants title to the property involved in the unlawful detainer case. The

records show that these petitions were both dismissed for lack of legal personality

on the part of the plaintiffs to file the petition.

[19]

Fourth, after the dismissals of the petition for annulment of judgment and

the petitions for annulment of title, the respondent this time filed a petition fordeclaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the

complainant and his siblings from exercising their rights over the same propertysubject of the unlawful detainer case. The respondent based the petition on the

alleged nullity of the complainants title because the property is a part of forestland.

Fifth, the persistent applications by the respondent for injunctive relief in thefour petitions he had filed in several courtsthe petition for certiorari, the petitionfor annulment of judgment, the second petition for annulment of complainants

title and the petition for declaratory relief reveal the respondents persistence inpreventing and avoiding the execution of the final decisions of the MeTC and RTC

against his clients in the unlawful detainer case.

Under the circumstances, the respondents repeated attempts go beyond the

legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of

his client. These are already uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement offinal judgments of the MeTC and RTC. In these attempts, the respondent violated

Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes itobligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and. . .not [to] misuse

them to defeat the ends of justice. By his actions, the respondent used procedural

rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice,

resulting in prejudice to the winning parties in that case.[20]


12/50

Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping

The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility,[21]as well as the rule against forumshopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain

the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tendto degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial

procedure;[22]and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the

courts.[23]

While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts

jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantively erroneous) move,the respondents subsequent petitions involving the same property and the sameparties not only demonstrate his attempts to secure favorable ruling using different

fora, but his obvious objective as well of preventing the execution of the MeTC

and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent ismost obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and

declaratory relief, both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful

detainer decision, long after this decision had become final.

Willful, intentional and deliberate

falsehood before the courts

The records also reveal that the respondent committed willful,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn21


13/50

intentional and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he filed with the lower courts.

First, in the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the RTC,

Branch 101, Quezon City, the respondent cited extrinsic fraud as one of the

grounds for the annulment sought. The extrinsic fraud was alleged in the lastparagraph of the petition, as follows:

In here, counsel for the petitioners (defendants therein), deliberately neglected to

file the proper remedy then available after receipt of the denial of their Motion forReconsideration thuscorruptly sold out the interest of the

petitioners(defendants therein) by keeping them away to the Court and in

complete ignorance of the suit by a false pretense of compromise and fraudulent

acts of alleging representing them when in truth and in fact, have connived with

the attorney of the prevailing party at his defeat to the prejudice of the

petitioner(defendants therein) [24]

Yet, in paragraph 35 of the same petition, the respondent alleged that no secondmotion for reconsideration or for new trial, or no other petition with the CA had

been filed, as he believed that the decisions rendered both by the MeTC and theRTC are null and void.[25] These conflicting claims, no doubt, involve a

fabrication made for the purpose of supporting the petition for annulment. Worse,it involved a direct and unsubstantiated attack on the reputation of a law office

colleague, another violation we shall separately discuss below.

Second,the respondent employed another obvious subterfuge when he filed

his second petition for annulment of title, which was an unsuccessful attempt tocircumvent the rule that only the Solicitor General may commence reversionproceedings of public lands[26]on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. This

second petition, filed by a private party and not by the Republic, showed that: (a)the respondent and his clients requested that they be represented by the Solicitor

General in the proceedings; (b) the Republic of the Philippines was simplyimpleaded in the amended petition without its consent as a plaintiff; and (c) the

respondent signed the amended petition where he alone stood as counsel for the

plaintiffs. In this underhanded manner, the respondent sought to compel the

Republic to litigate and waste its resources on an unauthorized and unwanted suit.

Third,the respondent also committed falsehood in his motion forreconsideration of the order dismissing his petition for annulment of judgment

where he misrepresented to the court and his clients what actually transpired in the

hearing of June 28, 2002 in this wise:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn24


14/50

Likewise, the proceedings on said date of hearing (June 28, 2002) show,

that after both counsel have argued on the aforesaid pending incident, the

Honorable Presiding Judge, in open court, and in the presence and within thehearing distance of all the plaintiffs and their counsel as well as the counsel of the

defendants resolved: TO DENY THE MOTION TO DISM ISS FI LED AND

DIRECTED DEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THECOMPLAI NT WITHI N THE REMAI NING PERIOD.[27]

[Underscoring andemphasis theirs]

The records, however, disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28,

2002 was actually for the respondents application for temporary restraining orderand was not a hearing on the adverse partys motion to dismiss.[28] The records

also show that RTC-Branch 101 held in abeyance the respondents application for

injunctive relief pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by the

adverse party.

[29]

As stated in the order of the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 101:Browsing over the records of this case specifically the transcripts of

stenographic notes as transcribed by the Stenographer, the same will indicate that

the allegations in the Motion for Reconsideration are not true.

how can this Court make a ruling on the matter even without stating the factual

and legal bases as required/mandated by the Rules. Moreover, there are noindications or iota of irregularity in the preparation by Stenographer of the

transcripts, and by the Court interpreter of the Minutes of the open Court

session.[Underscoring theirs]

The records further disclose that despite knowledge of the falsity of hisallegations, the respondent took advantage of his position and the trust reposed inhim by his clients (who are all squatters) to convince them to support, through their

affidavits, his false claims on what allegedly transpired in the June 28, 2002hearing.[30]

For these acts, we find the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon 10

the Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the lawyers duty to observecandor and fairness in his dealings with the court. This provision states:

CANON 10A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITHTO THE COURT

Rule 10.01A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any

in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be mislead by an artifice.


15/50

Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a

lawyer never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or falsestatement of fact or law.[31] The respondent failed to remember that his duty as an

officer of the court makes him an indispensable participant in the administration of

justice,[32]and that he is expected to act candidly, fairly and truthfully in hiswork.[33]His duty as a lawyer obligates him not to conceal the truth from the court,

or to mislead the court in any manner, no matter how demanding his duties to hisclients may be.[34] In case of conflict, his duties to his client yield to his duty to

deal candidly with the court.[35]

In defending his clients interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule

19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:

CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL

WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAWRule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the

lawful objectives of his clients x x x

This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only such

means as are consistent with truth and honor.[36]He should not prosecute patentlyfrivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions.[37] The

recital of what the respondent did to prevent the execution of the judgment against

his clients shows that he actually committed what the above rule expressly

prohibits.

Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers

To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of

judgment, the respondent attacked (as quoted above) the name and reputation of

the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate neglect, corrupt motives and

connivance with the counsel for the adverse party.

We find it significant that the respondent failed to demonstrate how he cameupon his accusation against Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his own admission,only participated in the cases previously assigned to Atty. Catolico after the latter

died. At the same time, the respondents petition for annulment of judgment alsorepresented that no second motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed to

contest the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reasonthat the respondent believed the said decisions were nulland void ab initio.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn31


16/50

Under these circumstances, we believe that the respondent has been less thanfair in his professional relationship with Atty. Catolico and is thus liable for

violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which obligates a

lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his

professional colleagues. He was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing to Atty.

Catolico without showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty.Catolico, who is now dead and unable to defend himself.

Unauthorized appearances

We support Investigating Commissioner Cunanans finding that the

respondent twice represented parties without proper authorization: first, in the

petition for annulment of judgment; and second, in the second petition forannulment of title.[38]

In the first instance, the records show that the respondent filed the petition

for annulment of judgment on behalf of 49 individuals, 31 of whom gave theirconsent while the other 15 individuals did not. We cannot agree with the

respondents off-hand explanation that he truly believed that a majority of the

litigants who signed the certification of non-forum shopping in the petition alreadygave him the necessary authority to sign for the others. We find it highly

improbable that this kind of lapse could have been committed by a seasoned

lawyer like the respondent, who has been engaged in the practice of law for morethan 30 years and who received rigid and strict trainingas he so proudly declares,

from the University of the Philippines College of Law and in the two law firmswith which he was previously associated.[39]As Investigating Commissioner

Cunanan found, the respondents explanation of compliance with the rule on the

certification of non-forum shopping glossed over the real charge of appearing in

court without the proper authorization of the parties he allegedly represented.

In the second instance, which occurred in the second complaint for

annulment of title, the respondent knew that only the Solicitor General can legallyrepresent the Republic of the Philippines in actions for reversion of land.

Nevertheless, he filed an amended petition where he impleaded the Republic of

the Philippines as plaintiff without its authority and consent, as a surreptitious wayof forcing the Republic to litigate. Notably, he signed the amended complaint on

behalf of all the plaintiffshis clients and the Republic.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn38


17/50

In both instances, the respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of

the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized appearances. The settledrule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority from the latter or

from the latters representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave of

court.[40]The willful unauthorized appearance by a lawyer for a party in a givencase constitutes contumacious conduct and also warrants disciplinary measures

against the erring lawyer for professional misconduct.[41]

The Respondents Defenses

We find no merit in the respondents defenses.

Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking

unconscientious advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the East v.

Jaderwe said that "[g]ood faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from takingundue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of law,together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the

transaction unconscientious."[42]Bad faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind

affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, illwill or for an ulterior purpose.[43] As both concepts are states of mind, they may be

deduced from the attendant circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts and

statements of the person whose state of mind is the subject of inquiry.

In this case, we find that the respondent acted in bad faith in defending the

interests of his clients. We draw this conclusion from the misrepresentations andthe dubious recourses he made, all obviously geared towards forestalling the

execution of the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. That he took advantageof his legal knowledge and experience and misread the Rules immeasurably

strengthen the presence of bad faith.

We find neither sincerity nor honest belief on the part of the respondent inpleading the soundness and merit of the cases that he filed in court to prevent the

execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions, considering his own conduct of

presenting conflicting theories in his petitions. The succession of cases he filedshows a desperation that negates the sincere and honest belief he claims; these are

simply scattershot means to achieve his objective of avoiding the execution of the

unlawful detainer judgment against his clients.

On the respondents allegations regarding his discretion todetermine legalstrategy, it is not amiss to note that this was the same defense he raised in the first
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn40


18/50

disbarment case.[44] As we explained inPlus Builders,the exercise of a lawyers

discretion in acting for his client can never be at the expense oftruth andjustice. In the words of this cited case:

While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full

devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense ofhis rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do soonly within the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and honest opinion on

the merits and probable results of his clients case with the end in view of

promoting respect for the law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain suchactions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as

he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind

himself of the oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he will not wittingly

or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid norconsent to the same; and that he will conduct [himself] as a lawyeraccording to

the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the

courts as to [his] clients. Needless to state, the lawyers fidelity to his client mustnot be pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice, and itmust be done within the bounds of reason and common sense. A lawyers

responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a

course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against theother party.

[45]

We cannot give credence to the respondents claim that the disbarment case

was filed because the counsel of the complainant, Atty. Uy, had an axe to grindagainst him. We reject this argument, considering that it was not Atty. Uy who

filed the present disbarment case against him; Atty. Uy is only the counsel in thiscase. In fact, Atty. Uy has filed his own separate disbarment case against the

respondent.

Thesui generis nature of a disbarment case renders the underlying motivesof the complainants unimportant and with very little relevance. The purpose of a

disbarment proceeding is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continueacting as an officer of the court and a participant in the dispensation of justice an

issue where the complainants personal motives have little relevance. For thisreason, disbarment proceedings may be initiated by the Court motu proprio upon

information of an alleged wrongdoing. As we also explained in the caseIn re:Almacen:

. . .disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generis. Neither purely civil

nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and does not involve - a trial of anaction or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn44


19/50

of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a

criminal prosecution.

x x x

It may be initiated by the Court motuproprio. Public interest is its primary

objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney isstill a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its

disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to accountfor his actuations as an officer of-the Court with the end in view of preserving the

purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice

by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have provedthemselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities

pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no

occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.[46]

Hence, we give little or no weight to the alleged personal motivation that drove thecomplainant Que and his counsel to file the present disbarment case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the respondent committed various

acts of professional misconduct and thereby failed to live up to the exacting ethicalstandards imposed on members of the Bar. We cannot agree, however, that only a

penalty of one-year suspension from the practice of law should be

imposed. Neither should we limit ourselves to the originally recommended penalty

of suspension for two (2) years.

Given the respondents multiple violations, his past record as previouslydiscussed, and the nature of these violations which shows the readiness to

disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the orderly administration ofjustice, we believe and so hold that the appropriate action of this Court is to disbar

the respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any significant

role in the administration of justice which he has disgraced. He is a continuing risk,

too, to the public that the legal profession serves. Not even his ardor andoverzealousness in defending the interests of his client can save him. Such traits at

the expense of everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and theorderly administration of justice, this Court cannot accept nor tolerate.

Additionally, disbarment is merited because this is not the respondents first

ethical infraction of the same nature. We penalized him inPlus Builders, Inc. andEdgardo Garcia versus Atty. Anastacio E. Revillafor his willful and intentional


20/50

falsehood before the court; for misuse of court procedures and processes to delay

the execution of a judgment; and for collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegalpractice of law. We showed leniency then by reducing his penalty to suspension

for six (6) months. We cannot similarly treat the respondent this time; it is clear

that he did not learn any lesson from his past experience and since then hasexhibited traits of incorrigibility. It is time to put afinisto the respondents

professional legal career for the sake of the public, the profession and the interestof justice.

WHEREFORE,premises considered, we hereby AFFIRMResolution No.

XVII-2005-164 dated December 17, 2005 and Resolution No. XVII-2008-657

dated December 11, 2008 of the Board of Governors of the IBP Committee on BarDiscipline insofar as respondent Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. isfound liable

for professional misconductfor violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules

10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 ofRule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify the penalty the IBP imposed,

and hold that the respondent should beDISBARRED from the practice of law.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

EN BANC

EUGENIA MENDOZA, A.C. No. 5338

Complainant,Present:

PUNO, C.J.,QUISUMBING,


21/50

YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO,AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,CORONA,

- versus - CARPIO MORALES,TINGA,CHICO-NAZARIO,VELASCO, Jr.,NACHURA,DE CASTRO,

BRION, and

PERALTA,JJ.

ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, Promulgated:

Respondent. February 23, 2009x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the

virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority for

there is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-tonedmorality is more imperative than that of law.

[1]

Before the Court is the Petition filed by Eugenia Mendoza (complainant)

dated September 19, 2000, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre(respondent) for his acts of fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks without her

authority and using the same for filing unfounded criminal suits against her.

Complainant, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, averred that:On October 13, 1998, she borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc., through respondent, the

amount ofP20,000.00 payable in six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks,with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn against the Postal Bank. Although she was

unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made remittances, however,to respondent's Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn1


22/50

total sum of P12,910.00.[2] Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover

the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant that he woulddeposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount

of P16,000.00. Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said

check and respondent was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter,complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of respondent

from April 13, 1999 toOctober 15, 1999,[3]thereby paying respondent the total sumof P35,690.00.[4]

Complainant further claimed that, later, respondent filled up two of the postal

checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the amount of P50,000.00

each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000 respectively, whichrespondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant received on

November 15, 1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed P100,000.00

from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her, a mail sorter witha basic monthly salary of less than P6,000.00, such amount. Complainant also claimed thatrespondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling up, without

authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.[5]

In his Comment dated January 18, 2000, respondent averred that his dealings with

complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a lawyer, and that when he filed a

complaint for violation ofBatas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against complainant, he wasonly vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was complainant

who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15,

1999 transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for thereason account closed; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct

transaction; complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him forfiling the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim that

respondent filled up the blank checks issued by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was

that the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her signature

thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks, and that she was amere low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several checking accounts;

and if he really intended to defraud complainant, he would have written a higher amount

on the checks instead of only P50,000.00.[6]

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines[7](IBP), and the

parties were required to file their position papers.[8]

In her Position Paper, complainant, apart from reiterating her earlier claims, allegedthat respondent, after the hearing on the disbarment case before the IBP on September 5,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn2


23/50

2001, again filled up three of her blank checks, Check Nos. 47263, 47264 and 47265,

totaling P100,000.00, to serve as basis for another criminal complaint, since the earlierestafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case filed by respondent against her before the Office of the

Prosecutor of Pasig City was dismissed on August 14, 2000.[9]

Respondent insisted in his Position Paper, however, that complainant

borrowed P100,000.00 in exchange for two postdated checks, and that since he had knowncomplainant for quite some time, he accepted said checks on complainant's assurance that

they were good as cash.[10]

Investigating Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes submitted his Report

dated September 6, 2002, finding respondent guilty of dishonesty and recommendedrespondent's suspension from the practice of law for one year.[11] The Report was adopted

and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution dated October 19,

2002.[12]

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied, however, bythe IBP Board of Governors on January 25, 2003 on the ground that it no longer hadjurisdiction on the matter, as the same was already endorsed to the Supreme Court.[13]

On June 9, 2003 this Court's Second Division issued a Resolution remanding thecase to the IBP for the conduct of formal investigation, as the Report of Commissioner

Reyes was based merely on the pleadings submitted.[14]

After hearings were conducted,[15] Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa

submitted his Report dated December 5, 2006 finding respondent guilty of gross

misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommendedrespondent's suspension for three years.[16]

Commissioner Funa held that while it was difficult at first to determine who

between complainant and respondent was telling the truth, in the end, respondent himself,

with his own contradicting allegations, showed that complainant's version should be given

more credence.[17]

Commissioner Funa noted that although complainant's total obligation to

respondent was only P24,000.00, since the loan obtained by complainant on October 13,1998 wasP20,000.00 at 20% interest payable in six months, by April 13, 1999, however,

complainant had actually paid respondent the total amount of P30,240.00. Thus, even

though the payment was irregularly given, respondent actually earned more than the agreedupon 20% interest. Moreover, the amounts of P50,000.00 as well as the name of the payee

in the subject checks were all typewritten[18]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn9


24/50

Commissioner Funa also gave credence to complainant's claim that it was

respondent's modus operandito demand a certain amount as settlement for the droppingof estafa complaints against his borrowers. As Commissioner Funa explains:

[A] complaint for estafa/violation of BP 22 was filed against [complainant] before

the Prosecutor's Office in Pasig City on June 21, 2000. On August 14, 2000, theProsecutor's Office dismissed the complaint. On October 2, 2000, Complainant filed thisdisbarment case. About one year later, or on September 5, 2001, Complainant was

surprised to receive a demand letter demanding payment once again for

another P100,000.00 corresponding to another three checks, Check Nos. 0047263,0047264 and 0047265.

Furthermore, Respondent filed another criminal complaint for estafa/violation of

BP 22 dated October 17, 2001, this time before the QC Prosecutor's Office. Theprosecutor's office recommended the filing of the criminal case for one of the checks.

x x x x

Respondent's version, on the other hand, is that Check Nos. 0047261 and 0047262

were given to him for loans (rediscounting) contacted on November 15, 1999 and not for a

loan contracted onOctober 13, 1998. x x x He claims that the October 13, 1998 transactionis an earlier and different transaction. x x x On the very next day, or on November 16,

1999, Complainant again allegedly contracted another loan for another P100,000.00 for

which Complainant allegedly issued the following Postal Bank checks [Check No.

0047263 dated May 16, 2001 for P20,000.00; Check No. 0047264 dated May 30, 2001for P30,000.00 and Check No. 0047265 dated June 15, 2001 for P50,000.00].

x x x x

Oddly though, Respondent never narrated that Complainant obtained a second

loan on November 16, 1999 in his Answer [dated January 18, 2000] and in his Position

Paper [dated October 8, 2001]. He did not even discuss it in his Motion forReconsideration dated December 20, 2002, although he attached the Resolution of the QC

Prosecutor's Office. Clearly, the November 16, 1999transaction was a mere concoction

that did not actually occur. It was a mere afterthought. Respondent once again filled-upthree of the other checks in his possession (checks dated May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and

June 15, 2001) so that he can again fileanother estafa/BP 22 case against Complainant

(October 17, 2001) AFTER the earlier complaint he had filed before the Pasig City

Prosecutor's Office had been dismissed (August 14, 2000) and AFTER herein Complainanthad filed this disbarment case (October 2, 2000).

More telling, and this is where Respondent gets caught, are the circumstancesattending this second loan of November 16, 1999. In addition to not mentioning it at all in

his Answer, his Position Paper, and his Motion for Reconsideration, which makes it very

strange, is that fact that he alleges that the loan was contracted on November 16, 1999 forwhich Complainant supposedly issued checks dated May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June


25/50

15, 2001. Note that May 16, 2001 is eighteen (18 months), or 1 year and 6 months,

from November 16, 1999. This is strangely a long period for loans of this nature. This loan

was supposedly not made in writing, only verbally. With no collaterals and noguarantors. Clearly, this is a non-existent transaction. It was merely concocted by

Respondent.

More importantly, and this is where Respondent commits his fatal blunderthusexposing his illegal machinations, Complainant allegedly received P100,000.00 in cash

on November 16, 1999 for which Complainant gave Respondent, in return, checks also

amounting to P100,000.00. The checks were supposedly dated May 16, 2001, May 30,2001 and June 15, 2001 x x x.

Now then, would not Respondent suffer a financial loss if he gave

away P100,000.00 on November 16, 1999 and then also receive P100,000.00 on May 16,2001 or 1 year and 6 months later? A person engaged in lending business would want to

earn interest. The same also with a person re-discounting checks. In this instance, in his

haste to concoct a story, Respondent forgot to factor in the interest. At 20% interest,assuming that it is per annum, for 1 years, Respondent should have collected from

Complainant at least P130,000.00. And yet the checks he filled up totaled

onlyP100,000.00. The same is true in re-discounting a check. If Complainant gave

Respondent P100,000.00 in checks, Respondent should be giving Complainant an amountless than P100,000.00. This exposes his story as a fabrication.

The same observations can be made of the first loan of P100,000.00 secured byCheck Nos. 0047261 and 0047262.

More strangely, during the course of the entire investigation, Respondent never

touched on what transpired on the dates of November 15 and 16, 1999. Consider thatComplainant's position is that no such transaction took place on November 15 and 16. And

yet, Respondent never made any effort to establish that Complainant

borrowed P100,000.00 on November 15 and then another P100,000.00 again onNovember 16. Respondent merely focused on establishing that Complainant's checks

bounced --- a fact already admitted several times by the Complainant --- and the reasons for

which were already explained by Complainant. This only shows the lack of candor ofRespondent.

[19]

x x x x

We take note further that Complainant is a mere mail sorter earning less

than P6,000.00 per month. Who would lend P200,000.00 to an employee earning such a

salary, nowadays, and not even secure such a loan with a written document or a

collateral? It defies realities of finance, economy and business. It even defies commonsense.

[20]

Commissioner Funa also took note that the instant case had practically the same set

of facts as in Olbes v. Deciembre[21]andAcosta v. Deciembre.[22] InOlbes, complainants
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn19


26/50

therein, who were also postal employees, averred that respondent without authority filled

up a total of four checks to represent a total of P200,000.00. InAcosta, the complainanttherein, another postal employee, averred that respondent filled up two blank checks for a

total of P100,000.00. Acosta,however, was dismissed by Commissioner Lydia Navarro

on the ground that it did not involve any lawyer-client relationship, which ground,Commissioner Funa believes, is erroneous.[23]

On May 31, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution adopting and

approving Commissoner Funa's Report, but modifying the penalty, as follows:

RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2007-219

Adm. Case No. 5338

Eugenia Mendoza vs.

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED andAPPROVED,with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the InvestigatingCommissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex

A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the

applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's gross misconduct and forpractically found guilty of committing the same set of facts alleged in AC 5365, Atty. Victor

V. Deciembre is hereby SUSPENDED INDEFINITELYfrom the practice of law to be

served successively after the lifting of Respondent's Indefinite Suspension.[24]

Although no motion for reconsideration was filed before the IBP Board of

Governors, nor a petition for review before this Court as reported by IBP and Office of theBar Confidant, the Court considers the IBP Resolution merely recommendatory andtherefore would not attain finality, pursuant to par. (b), Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules

of Court. The IBP elevated to this Court the entire records of the case for appropriateaction.

The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP, but finds that disbarment and not just

indefinite suspension is in order.

The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon

those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required bylaw for the conferment of such privilege.[25] A high sense of morality, honesty and fair

dealing is expected and required of members of the bar.[26]They must conduct themselves

with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at alltimes.[27]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/5338.htm#_ftn23


27/50

The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions

entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as alawyer, from liability.

A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for actswhich tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion

of the public.[28] Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committedin a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his

personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.[29]

In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards

required of members of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressedprovisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

CANON 1A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land andpromote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitfulconduct.

x x x x

CANON 7A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal

profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.

x x x x

Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on hisfitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a

scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

As correctly observed by IBP Investigating Commissioner Funa, respondent failed

to mention in his Comment dated January 18, 2000, in his Position Paper dated October 8,2001 and in his Motion for Reconsideration dated December 20, 2002, the P100,000.00

loan which complainant supposedly contracted on November 16, 1999. It is also

questionable why the checks dated May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001 whichwere supposedly issued to secure a loan contracted about 18 months earlier, i.e.November16, 1999, were made without any interest. The same is true with the checks dated January

15 and 20, 2000 in the total sum of P100,000.00, which were supposed to secure a loancontracted on November 15, 1999, for the same amount. Considering these circumstances

and the sequence of dates when respondent filed his criminal

teresita d. santeco

Documents