Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | paul-angelo- |
View: | 236 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 50
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#_ftn18/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn38/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn98/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn158/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn18/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn28/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn58/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn68/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn98/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn138/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn178/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn218/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn248/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn278/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn318/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn388/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn408/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn448/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/7054.htm#_ftn468/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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,
8/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn18/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn28/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn98/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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
8/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn198/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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#_ftn238/12/2019 Teresita d. Santeco
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