Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

A.C. No.

3910 August 14, Villalon to complain about the people of


2000 respondent Canares but nothing was
done.
JOSE S. DUCAT, JR., complainant,
vs. Complainant then filed a case for
ATTYS. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. ejectment against respondent Canares. In
and CRISPULO DUCUSIN, respondents. his Reply however, the latter answered
that the subject property was already sold
DECISION by complainant to respondent Canares in
the amount of ₱450,000.00 as evidenced
DE LEON, JR., J.: by the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real
Property dated December 5, 1991 and
Before us is a verified letter-complaint for
1 notarized by respondent Atty. Crispulo
disbarment against Attys. Arsenio C. Ducusin. Complainant, however, averred
Villalon, Jr.; Andres Canares, Jr. and that he never sold the property, signed any
Crispulo Ducusin for deceit and gross document nor received any money
misconduct in violation of the lawyer’s therefor, and he also denied having
oath. Investigation proceeded only against appeared before respondent Ducusin who
respondent Villalon because it was was the notary public for the Deed of
discovered that Andres Canares was not a Absolute Sale. Complainant discovered
lawyer while Atty. Crispulo Ducusin that respondent Villalon claimed that
passed away on February 3, 1996. 2 complainant’s father allegedly gave the
subject property to him (respondent
In the letter-complaint, complainant
3 Villalon) as evidenced by a document of
alleged that on October 29, 1991, sale purportedly signed by complainant.
respondent Villalon, as counsel for the
family of complainant, spoke to the father In his Comment, respondent Villalon
4

of complainant and asked that he be given denied that allegations of the complainant
the title over a property owned by and in turn, he alleged that the property
complainant located in Pinugay, Antipolo, was given voluntarily by Jose Ducat, Sr. to
Rizal and covered by TCT No. M-3023, him out of close intimacy and for past legal
Emancipation Patent No. 410414, services rendered. Thereafter, respondent
because he allegedly had to verify the Villalon, with the knowledge and consent
proper measurements of the subject of Jose Ducat, Sr., allowed the subject
property. Sometime in November, 1991, property to be used by Andres Canares to
however, complainant and his family were start a piggery business without any
surprised when several people entered the monetary consideration. A Deed of Sale of
subject property and, when confronted by Parcel of Land was then signed by Jose
the companions of complainant, the latter Ducat, Sr. to evidence that he has
were told that they were workers of conveyed the subject property to
Canares and were there to construct a respondent Villalon with the name of
piggery. Complainant complained to the respondent Canares included therein as
barangay authorities in Pinugay and protection because of the improvements to
narrated the incident but respondent be introduced in the subject property.
Canares did not appear before it and Upon presenting the title covering the
continued with the construction of the subject property, it was discovered that
piggery in the presence of armed men who the property was registered in the name of
were watching over the construction. Jose Ducat, Jr. and not Jose Ducat, Sr.,
Complainant then went to respondent but the latter told respondents Villalon and
Canares not to worry because the land This Court referred the case to the
7

was actually owned by him and that he Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
merely placed the name of his son, Jose investigation, report and recommendation.
Ducat, Jr. Jose Ducat, Sr. then suggested
that the subject property be transferred On May 17, 1997, the IBP Board of
directly from Jose Ducat, Jr. to respondent Governors passed a resolution adopting
Canares; hence, he (Ducat, Sr.) got the and approving the report and
title and guaranteed that he would return recommendation of its Investigating
the document already signed and Commissioner who found respondent Atty.
notarized, which he did the following day. Villalon guilty, and recommended his
According to respondent Canares, the suspension from the practice of law for two
trouble began when Jose Ducat, Sr. came (2) years and likewise directed respondent
to his office demanding to know why he Atty. Villalon to deliver to the complainant
was not allowed to cut the trees inside the his TCT No. M-3023 within ten (10) days
subject property by the caretaker of from receipt of notice, otherwise, this will
respondent Canares. result in his disbarment.

On January 21, 1993, Jose Ducat, Jr. The findings of IBP Investigating
wrote to this Court and averred that he
5
Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez are as
neither signed the Deed of Sale covering follows:
the subject property nor did he appear
before the notary public Crispulo Ducusin, Complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat,
who notarized the same. He averred that Sr., testified in a straightforward,
respondents Villalon and Ducusin should spontaneous and candid manner. The
be disbarred from the practice of law and sincerity and demeanor they displayed
respondent Villalon be imprisoned for while testifying before the Commission
forging his signature and selling the inspire belief as to the truth of what they
subject property without his consent. are saying. More importantly, respondent
failed to impute any ill-motive on the part
In his Rejoinder , respondent Villalon
6
of the complainant and his witness which
denied the allegations of complainant and can impel them to institute the instant
maintained that he is a member of good complaint and testify falsely against him.
standing of the Integrated Bar and that he To be sure, the testimony of the
has always preserved the high standards complainant and his witness deserves the
of the legal profession. Respondent Commission’s full faith and credence.
Villalon expressed his willingness to have
the Deed of Sale examined by the Respondent’s evidence, on the other hand,
National Bureau of Investigation and leaves much to be desired. His defense
reiterated that the subject property was (that he considered himself the owner of
orally given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. and the subject property which was allegedly
it was only in October, 1991 that the given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr.) rings
conveyance was reduced in writing. He hollow in the face of a welter of
added that the complainant knew that his contravening and incontrovertible facts.
father, Jose Ducat, Sr., was the person
who signed the said document for and in FIRST, the registered owner of the subject
his behalf and that this was done with his property is complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.
consent and knowledge. Accordingly, respondent (being a lawyer)
knew or ought to know that Jose Ducat, Sr.
could not possibly give to him the said
property unless the former is duly Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied having
authorized by the complainant through a executed said document which denial is
Special Power of Attorney. No such not too difficult to believe in the light of the
authorization has been given. Moreover, circumstances already mentioned.
Jose Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied
having given the subject property to the FOURTH, the Deed of Absolute Sale of
respondent. This denial is not too difficult Real Property (Exh. "2" for the respondent
to believe considering the fact that he and Exh. "A-3" for the complainant)
(Jose Ducat, Sr.) is not the owner of said allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Jr. in
property. favor of Andres Canares, Jr. over the
subject property (which respondent claims
SECOND, being a lawyer, respondent he prepared upon instruction of Jose
knew or ought to know that conveyance of Ducat, Sr.) is likewise of questionable
a real property, whether gratuitously or for character. Complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.
a consideration, must be in writing. has vigorously denied having executed
Accordingly, it is unbelievable that he said document. He claims that he has
would consider himself the owner of the never sold said property to Andres
subject property on the basis of the verbal Canares, Jr. whom he does not know; that
or oral "giving" of the property by Jose he has never appeared before Atty.
Ducat, Sr. no matter how many times the Crispulo Ducusin to subscribe to the
latter may have said that. document; and that he has never received
the amount of P450,000.00 representing
THIRD, the Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land the consideration of said transaction. More
(Exh. "1" for the respondent and Exh. importantly, the infirmity of the said Deed
"A-2" for the complainant) allegedly of Absolute Sale of Real Property was
executed by Jose Ducat, Sr. in favor of supplied by the respondent no less when
respondent Atty. Arsenio Villalon and/or he admitted that there was no payment of
Andres Canares, Jr. covering the subject P450,000.00 and that the same was
parcel of land which respondent prepared placed in the document only to make it
allegedly upon instruction of Jose Ducat, appear that the conveyance was for a
Sr. is of dubious character. As earlier consideration. Accordingly, and being a
adverted to, Jose Ducat, Sr. is not the lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know
owner of said property. Moreover, said the irregularity of his act and that he
Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land is a should have treated the document as
falsified document as admitted by the another scrap of worthless paper instead
respondent himself when he said that the of utilizing the same to substantiate his
signature over the typewritten name Maria defense. 8

Cabrido (wife of Jose Ducat, Sr.) was


affixed by Jose Ducat, Sr. Being a lawyer, After a careful consideration of the record
respondent knew or ought to know that the of the instant case, it appears that the
act of Jose Ducat, Sr. in affixing his wife’s findings of facts and observations of the
signature is tantamount to a forgery. Investigating Commissioner, Integrated
Accordingly, he should have treated the Bar of the Philippines, which were all
said Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land has adopted by its Board of Governors, are
(sic) a mere scrap of worthless paper well-taken, the same being supported by
instead of relying on the same to the evidence adduced.
substantiate his claim that the subject
property was given to him by Jose Ducat, The ethics of the legal profession rightly
Sr. Again, of note is the fact that Jose enjoin lawyers to act with the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play and Power of Attorney from the registered
nobility in the course of his practice of law. owner thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for his wife,
for any misconduct, whether in his Maria Cabrido, under the word "Conforme".
professional or private capacity, which As regards the subsequent Deed of
shows him to be wanting in moral Absolute Sale of Real Property dated
character, in honesty, in probity and good December 5, 1991, covering the same
demeanor, thus rendering unworthy to property, this time purportedly in favor of
continue as an officer of the court. Canon
9
Andres Canares, Jr. only, respondent
7 of the Code of Professional Villalon admitted that there was in fact no
Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer payment of ₱450,000.00 and that the said
shall at all times uphold the integrity and amount was placed in that document only
dignity of the legal profession." The trust to make it appear that the conveyance
and confidence necessarily reposed by was for a consideration.
clients require in the lawyer a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to All these taken together, coupled with
them. To this end, nothing should be done complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.’s strong and
by any member of the legal fraternity credible denial that he allegedly sold the
which might tend to lessen in any degree subject property to respondent Villalon
the confidence of the public in the fidelity, and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that he
honesty, and integrity of the profession. 10
allegedly appeared before respondent
notary public Ducusin, convince us that
It has been established that the subject respondent Villalon’s acts herein
parcel of land, with an area of five (5) complained of which constitute gross
hectares located in Barrio Pinugay, misconduct were duly proven.
Antipolo, Rizal, is owned by and registered
in the name of complainant herein, Jose Public confidence in law and lawyers may
Ducat, Jr. Respondent Villalon insists be eroded by the irresponsible and
nonetheless that the property was orally improper conduct of a member of the
given to him by complainant’s father, Jose Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and
1âwphi1

Ducat, Sr., allegedly with the complete comport himself in such a manner that
knowledge of the fact that the subject would promote public confidence in the
property belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, integrity of the legal profession. Members
Jr. It is basic law, however, that of the Bar are expected to always live up
conveyance or transfer of any titled real to the standards of the legal profession as
property must be in writing, signed by the embodied in the Code of Professional
registered owner or at least by his Responsibility inasmuch as the
attorney-in-fact by virtue of a proper relationship between an attorney and his
special power of attorney and duly client is highly fiduciary in nature and
notarized. Respondent Villalon, as a demands utmost fidelity and good faith. 12

lawyer, is presumed to know, or ought to


know, this process. Worse, when the We find, however, the IBP’s
transfer was first reduced in writing in recommended penalty of two (2) years
October, 1991 per Deed of Sale of Parcel suspension to be imposed upon
of Land, purportedly in favor of "Atty.
11
respondent Atty. Villalon too severe in the
Arsenio C. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, light of the facts obtaining in the case at
Jr.," respondent Villalon knew that it was bar. In Cesar V. Roces vs. Atty. Jose G.
Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed the said Aportadera, this Court suspended therein
13

document of sale without any Special respondent Atty. Aportadera for a period
of two (2) years from the practice of law for lawyer for a number of years of the family
two main reasons: of Jose Ducat, Sr.

(i)....His dubious involvement in the WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY.


preparation and notarization of the ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. is hereby
falsified sale of his client’s property merits found guilty of gross misconduct, and he is
the penalty of suspension imposed on him SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
by the IBP Board of Governors; and a period of ONE (1) YEAR with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act
(ii)....The NBI investigation reveals that: (1) will be dealt with more severely.
respondent misrepresented himself to Respondent Villalon is further directed to
Gregorio Licuanan as being duly deliver to the registered owner,
authorized by Isabel Roces to sell her complainant Jose Ducat Jr., the latter’s
property; (2) it was respondent who TCT No. M-3023 covering the subject
prepared the various deeds of sale over property within a period of sixty (60) days
Isabel’s subdivision lots; (3) Isabel was from receipt of this Decision, at his sole
already confined at a hospital in Metro expense; and that failure on his part to do
Manila on January 4, 1980, the deed’s so will result in his disbarment.
date of execution; (4) respondent knew
that Isabel was hospitalized in Metro Let a copy of this Decision be attached to
Manila when he subscribed the deed; (5) Atty. Villalon’s personal record in the
he knew that Isabel died in Metro Manila Office of the Bar Confidant and copies
soon after her confinement; and (6) he did thereof be furnished the Integrated Bar of
not give the seller a copy of the the Philippines.
questioned deed of sale. 14

SO ORDERED.
Unlike the circumstances prevailing in the
said case of Aportadera, the record does
not show that respondent Villalon had any
direct participation in the notarization by
respondent notary public Crispulo Ducusin
of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real
Property dated December 5, 1991, which15

was supposedly signed by complainant


Jose Ducat, Jr. who, however, strongly
denied having signed the same. The
earlier Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land
dated "this ___day of October 1991," A.M. No. 3249 November 29, 1989
allegedly signed by Jose S. Ducat, Sr., as
vendor, covering the same property, in SALVACION DELIZO
favor of respondent "Arsenio S. Villalon CORDOVA, complainant,
and/or Andres Canares, Jr." was not vs.
notarized. The record also shows that ATTY. LAURENCE D.
Jose Ducat, Sr. and complainant Jose CORDOVA, respondent.
Ducat, Jr. are father and son and that they
live in the same house at 912 Leo Street,
RESOLUTION
Sampaloc, Manila. It is not also disputed
that respondent Villalon has been the
PER CURIAM: In a telegraphic message dated 6 April
1989, complainant informed the
In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 Commission that she and her husband
April 1988 addressed to then Mr. Chief had already "reconciled". In an order
Justice Claudio Teehankee, complainant dated 17 April 1989, the Commission
Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, required the parties (respondent and
Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with complainant) to appear before it for
immorality and acts unbecoming a confirmation and explanation of the
member of the Bar. The letter-complaint telegraphic message and required them to
was forwarded by the Court to the file a formal motion to dismiss the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complaint within fifteen (15) days from
Commission on Bar Discipline notice. Neither party responded and
("Commission"), for investigation, report nothing was heard from either party since
and recommendation. then.

The Commission, before acting on the Complainant having failed to submit her
complaint, required complainant to submit evidence ex parte before the Commission,
a verified complaint within ten (10) days the IBP Board of Governors submitted to
from notice. Complainant complied and this Court its report reprimanding
submitted to the Commission on 27 respondent for his acts, admonishing him
September 1988 a revised and verified that any further acts of immorality in the
version of her long and detailed complaint future will be dealt with more severely, and
against her husband charging him with ordering him to support his legitimate
immorality and acts unbecoming a family as a responsible parent should.
member of the Bar.
The findings of the IBP Board of
In an Order of the Commission dated 1 Governors may be summed up as follows:
December 1988, respondent was declared
in default for failure to file an answer to the Complainant and respondent Cordova
complaint within fifteen (15) days from were married on 6 June 1976 and out of
notice. The same Order required this marriage, two (2) children were born.
complainant to submit before the In 1985, the couple lived somewhere in
Commission her evidence ex parte, on 16 Quirino Province. In that year, respondent
December 1988. Upon the telegraphic Cordova left his family as well as his job as
request of complainant for the resetting of Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
the 16 December 1988 hearing, the Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and
Commission scheduled another hearing went to Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur
on 25 January 1989. The hearing with one Fely G. Holgado. Fely G.
scheduled for 25 January 1989 was Holgado was herself married and left her
rescheduled two (2) more times-first, for own husband and children to stay with
25 February 1989 and second, for 10 and respondent. Respondent Cordova and
11 April 1989. The hearings never took Fely G. Holgado lived together in Bislig as
place as complainant failed to appear. husband and wife, with respondent
Respondent Cordova never moved to set Cordova introducing Fely to the public as
aside the order of default, even though his wife, and Fely Holgado using the name
notices of the hearings scheduled were Fely Cordova. Respondent Cordova gave
sent to him. Fely Holgado funds with which to establish
a sari-sari store in the public market at
Bislig, while at the same time failing to necessarily adversely reflecting upon him
support his legitimate family. as a member of the Bar and upon the
Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for
On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and admission to membership in the bar is
his complainant wife had an apparent required to show that he is possessed of
reconciliation. Respondent promised that good moral character. That requirement is
he would separate from Fely Holgado and not exhausted and dispensed with upon
brought his legitimate family to Bislig, admission to membership of the bar. On
Surigao del Sur. Respondent would, the contrary, that requirement persists as
however, frequently come home from a continuing condition for membership in
beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and the Bar in good standing.
continued to neglect the support of his
legitimate family. In February 1987, In Mortel v. Aspiras, this Court, following
1

complainant found, upon returning from a the rule in the United States, held that "the
trip to Manila necessitated by continued possession ... of a good moral
hospitalization of her daughter Loraine, character is a requisite condition for the
that respondent Cordova was no longer rightful continuance in the practice of the
living with her (complainant's) children in law ... and its loss requires suspension or
their conjugal home; that respondent disbarment, even though the statutes do
Cordova was living with another mistress, not specify that as a ground for disbarment.
one Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his " It is important to note that the lack of
2

younger daughter Melanie along with him. moral character that we here refer to as
Respondent and his new mistress hid essential is not limited to good moral
Melanie from the complinant, compelling character relating to the discharge of the
complainant to go to court and to take duties and responsibilities of an attorney
back her daughter by habeas corpus. The at law. The moral delinquency that affects
Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her the fitness of a member of the bar to
custody of their children. continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral
Notwithstanding respondent's promises to standards of the community, conduct for
reform, he continued to live with Luisita instance, which makes "a mockery of the
Magallanes as her husband and continued inviolable social institution or
to fail to give support to his legitimate marriage." In Mortel, the respondent
3

family. being already married, wooed and won the


heart of a single, 21-year old teacher who
Finally the Commission received a subsequently cohabited with him and bore
telegram message apparently from him a son. Because respondent's conduct
complainant, stating that complainant and in Mortel was particularly morally repulsive,
respondent had been reconciled with each involving the marrying of his mistress to
other. his own son and thereafter cohabiting with
the wife of his own son after the marriage
After a review of the record, we agree with he had himself arranged, respondent was
the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We disbarred.
also agree that the most recent
reconciliation between complainant and In Royong v. Oblena, the respondent was
4

respondent, assuming the same to be real, declared unfit to continue as a member of


does not excuse and wipe away the the bar by reason of his immoral conduct
misconduct and immoral behavior of the and accordingly disbarred. He was found
respondent carried out in public, and to have engaged in sexual relations with
the complainant who consequently bore
him a son; and to have maintained for a
number of years an adulterous
relationship with another woman.

In the instant case, respondent Cordova


maintained for about two (2) years an
adulterous relationship with a married
woman not his wife, in full view of the
general public, to the humiliation and
detriment of his legitimate family which he,
rubbing salt on the wound, failed or
refused to support. After a brief period of A.M. No. 1334 November 28, 1989
"reform" respondent took up again with
another woman not his wife, cohabiting ROSARIO DELOS REYES, complainant,
with her and bringing along his young vs.
daughter to live with them. Clearly, ATTY. JOSE B. AZNAR, respondent.
respondent flaunted his disregard of the
fundamental institution of marriage and its Federico A. Blay for complainant.
elementary obligations before his own
daughter and the community at large. Luciano Babiera for respondent.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to RESOLUTION


SUSPEND respondent from the practice
of law indefinitely and until farther orders
from this Court. The Court will consider
lifting his suspension when respondent PER CURIAM:
Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the
Commission and this Court that he has This is a complaint for disbarment filed
and continues to provide for the support of against respondent on the ground of gross
his legitimate family and that he has given immorality.
up the immoral course of conduct that he
has clung to. Complainant, a second year medical
student of the Southwestern University
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, (Cebu), alleged in her verified complaint
Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then
Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, chairman of said university, had carnal
Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. knowledge of her for several times under
threat that she would fail in her Pathology
Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave. subject if she would not submit to
respondent's lustful desires. Complainant
Footnotes further alleged that when she became
pregnant, respondent, through a certain Dr.
Gil Ramas, had her undergo forced
abortion.

In compliance with the Resolution of the


Court dated July 9, 1974, respondent filed
his Answer denying any personal
knowledge of complainant as well as all 6) after arriving at the Ambassador Hotel,
the allegations contained in the complaint they dined at a Spanish restaurant at San
and by way of special defense, averred Marcelino, Malate, Manila for around three
that complainant is a woman of loose hours (pp 56-57, tsn, June 6, 1975);
morality.
7) they returned to the hotel at around
On September 2, 1974, the Court twelve o'clock midnight, where respondent
Resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor had carnal knowledge of her twice and
General for investigation, report and then thrice the next morning (p. 59, tsn,
recommendation. June 6, 1975; pp. 154, 155 & 157, tsn,
July 18, 1975);
The findings of the Solicitor General is
summarized as follows: 8) complainant consented to the sexual
desires of respondent because for her,
EVIDENCE FOR THE COMPLAINANT she would sacrifice her personal honor
rather than fail in her subjects (p.6l, tsn,
Complainant Rosario delos Reyes testified June 6, 1975); ... ... ...;
that:
9) sometime in March, 1973, complainant
1) she was a second year medical student told respondent that she was suspecting
of the Southwestern University, the pregnancy because she missed her
Chairman of the Board of which was menstruation (p. 76, tsn, July 17,
respondent Jose B. Aznar (pp. 11, 15, tsn, 1975); ... ... ...;
June 6, 1975);
10) later, she was informed by Dr.
2) she however failed in her Pathology Monsanto (an instructor in the college of
subject which prompted her to approach medicine) that respondent wanted that an
respondent in the latter's house who abortion be performed upon her (p.82, tsn,
assured her that she would pass the said July l7, 1975); ... ... ... ;
subject (pp. 15,16, 26, 33, tsn, June 6,
1975); 11) thereafter, Ruben Cruz, a confidant of
respondent, and Dr. Monsato fetched her
3) despite this assurance, however, she at her boarding house on the pretext that
failed (p. 33, tsn, June 6, 1975); she would be examined by Dr. Gil Ramas
(pp. 87-88, tsn, July 17, 1975);
4) sometime in February, 1973,
respondent told her that she should go 12) upon reaching the clinic of Dr. Ramas
with him to Manila, otherwise, she would she was given an injection and an
flunk in all her subjects (pp. 42, 50, tsn, inhalation mask was placed on her mouth
June 6, 1975); ... ... ... ; and nose (pp. 88-90, tsn, July 17, 1 975);

5) on February 12, 1973, both respondent 13) as a result, she lost consciousness
and complainant boarded the same plane and when she woke up, an abortion had
(Exh. "A") for Manila; from the Manila already been performed upon her and she
Domestic Airport, they proceeded to Room was weak, bleeding and felt pain all over
905, 9th Floor of the Ambassador Hotel her body (pp. 90-91, tsn, July 17,
where they stayed for three days (Exhs. 1975); ... ... ... (Rollo, pp. 38-40)
"K", "K-1" to "K-6"; p. 55, tsn, June 6, 1
975);
Monica Gutierrez Tan testified that she In his Answer, respondent Aznar alleges
met complainant and a man whom that he does not have any knowledge of
complainant introduced as Atty. Aznar in the allegations in the complaint. As special
front of the Ambassador Hotel (pp. defense, respondent further alleged that
183-184, tsn, Sept. 10, 1975; Rollo, p. 41). the charge levelled against him is in
furtherance of complainant's vow to wreck
Dr. Rebecca Gucor and Dr. Artemio Ingco, vengeance against respondent by reason
witnesses for the complainant, testified of the latter's approval of the
that abdominal examinations and x-ray recommendation of the Board of Trustees
examination of the lumbro-sacral region of barring complainant from enrollment for
complainant showed no signs of the school year 1973-1974 because she
abnormality (Rollo, p. 42). failed in most of her subjects. It is likewise
contended that the defense did not bother
The evidence for the respondent as to present respondent in the investigation
reported by the Solicitor General is conducted by the Solicitor General
summarized as follows: because nothing has been shown in the
hearing to prove that respondent had
Edilberto Caban testified that: carnal knowledge of the complainant.

1. In December, 1972, respondent Atty. Contrary to respondent's averments, the


Aznar stayed at Ambassador Hotel with Solicitor General made a categorical
his wife and children; respondent never finding to the effect that respondent had
came to Manila except in December, 1972; carnal knowledge of complainant, to wit:
(pp. 8-9,. tsn, Nov. 24, 1977);
From the foregoing, it is clear that
2. He usually slept with respondent complainant was compelled to go to
everytime the latter comes to Manila (p. 13, Manila with respondent upon the threat of
tsn, Nov. 24, 1977; Rollo, pp. 42-43). respondent that if she failed to do so, she
would flunk in all her subjects and she
Oscar Salangsang, another witness for the would never become a medical intern (pp.
respondent stated that: 42, 50, tsn, June 6, 1975). As respondent
was Chairman of the College of Medicine,
1. In February, 1973, he went to complainant had every reason to believe
Ambassador Hotel to meet respondent; him.
the latter had male companions at the
hotel but he did not see any woman It has been established also that
companion of respondent Aznar; complainant was brought by respondent to
Ambassador Hotel in Manila for three days
2. He usually slept with respondent at the where he repeatedly had carnal
Ambassador Hotel and ate with him knowledge of her upon the threat that if
outside the hotel together with Caban (pp. she would not give in to his lustful desires,
8-9, 13-15, tsn, Jan. 13, 1978; Rollo, p. she would fail in her Pathology subject
43). (Exhs. "A", "K", "K-1" to "K-6" pp. 51, 52,
55-59, tsn, June 6, 1975);
The Court notes that throughout the period
of the investigation conducted by the xxx xxx xxx
Solicitor General, respondent Aznar was
never presented to refute the allegations On the other hand, respondent did not
made against him. bother to appear during the hearing. It is
true that he presented Edilberto Caban may therefore be removed or suspended
and Oscar Salangsang who testified that by the Supreme Court for conduct
respondent usually slept with them every unbecoming a member of the Bar (Sec. 27,
time the latter came to Manila, but their Rule 138, Rules of Court).
testimony (sic) is not much of help. None
of them mentioned during the hearing that Respondent failed to adduce evidence
they stayed and slept with respondent on sufficient to engender doubt as to his
February 12 to February 14, 1973 at culpability of the offense imputed upon
Ambassador Hotel. ... ... ... Besides, him. With the exception of the self-serving
Edilberto Caban testified that respondent testimonies of two witnesses presented on
stayed at Ambassador Hotel with his wife respondent's behalf, the records are bereft
and children in December, 1972. The of evidence to exonerate respondent of
dates in question, however, are February the act complained of, much less
12 to 14, 1973, inclusive. His (Caban's) contradict, on material points, the
testimony, therefore, is immaterial to the testimonies of complainant herself.
present case" (Rollo, pp. 43-44).
While respondent denied having taken
In effect, the Solicitor General found that complainant to the Ambassador Hotel and
the charge of immorality against there had sexual intercourse with the latter,
respondent Aznar has been substantiated he did not present any evidence to show
by sufficient evidence both testimonial and where he was at that date. While this is not
documentary; while finding insufficient and a criminal proceeding, respondent would
uncorroborated the accusation of have done more than keep his silence if
intentional abortion. The Solicitor General he really felt unjustly traduced.
then recommends the suspension of
respondent from the practice of law for a It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever his
period of not less than three (3) years. moral character is put in issue, to satisfy
this Court that he is a fit and proper person
On March 16, 1989, the Court Resolved to to enjoy continued membership in the Bar.
require the parties to Move in the premises He cannot dispense with nor downgrade
to determine whether any intervening the high and exacting moral standards of
event occurred which would render the the law profession (Go v. Candoy, 21
case moot and academic (Rollo, p. 69). SCRA 439 [1967]). As once pronounced
by the Court:
On April 12, 1989, the Solicitor General
filed a manifestation and motion praying When his integrity is challenged by
that the case at bar be considered evidence, it is not enough that he denies
submitted for decision on the bases of the the charges against him; he must meet the
report and recommendation previously issue and overcome the evidence for the
submitted together with the record of the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by
case and the evidence adduced (Rollo, p. Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he
75). still maintains the highest degree of
morality and integrity, which at all times is
After a thorough review of the records, the expected of him. ... In the case of United
Court agrees with the finding of the States v. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice
Solicitor General that respondent Aznar, Moreland, speaking for the Court, said:
under the facts as stated in the Report of
the investigation conducted in the case, is An accused person sometimes owes a
guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" and duty to himself if not to the State. If he
does not perform that duty, he may not respondent's moral ascendancy over her
always expect the State to perform it for and fear that if she would not accede, she
him. If he fails to meet the obligation which would flunk in her subjects. As chairman of
he owes to himself, when to meet it is the the college of medicine where complainant
easiest of easy things, he is hardy indeed was enrolled, the latter had every reason
if he demand and expect that same full to believe that respondent could make
and wide consideration which the State good his threats. Moreover, as counsel for
voluntarily gives to those who by respondent would deem it "worthwhile to
reasonable effort seek to help themselves. inform the the Court that the respondent is
This is particularly so when he not only a scion of a rich family and a very rich man
declines to help himself but actively in his own right and in fact is not practicing
conceals from the State the very means by his profession before the court" (Rollo, p.
which it may assist him (Quingwa SCRA 70), mere suspension for a limited period,
439 [1967]). per se, would therefore serve no
redeeming purpose. The fact that he is a
The Solicitor General recommends that rich man and does not practice his
since the complainant is partly to blame for profession as a lawyer, does not render
having gone with respondent to Manila respondent a person of good moral
knowing fully well that respondent is a character. Evidence of good moral
married man ,with children, respondent character precedes admission to bar
should merely be suspended from the (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and
practice of law for not less than three (3) such requirement is not dispensed with
years (Rollo, p. 47). upon admission thereto. Good moral
character is a continuing qualification
On the other hand, respondent in his necessary to entitle one to continue in the
manifestation and motion dated April 18, practice of law. The ancient and learned
1989 alleges that since a period of about profession of law exacts from its members
ten (10) years had already elapsed from the highest standard of morality (Quingwa
the time the Solicitor General made his v. Puno, supra).
recommendation for a three (3) years
suspension and respondent is not Under Section 27, Rule 138, "(a) member
practicing his profession as a lawyer, the of the bar may be removed or suspended
court may now consider the respondent as from his office as attorney by the Supreme
having been suspended during the said Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
period and the case dismissed for being gross misconduct in such office, grossly
moot and academic. immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral
We disagree. turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before
Complainant filed the instant case for admission to practice, ... " In Arciga v.
disbarment not because respondent Maniwang (106 SCRA 591, [1981]), this
reneged on a promise to marry (Quingwa Court had occasion to define the concept
v. Puno, supra). More importantly. of immoral conduct, as follows:
complainant's knowledge of of
respondent's marital status is not at issue A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly
in the case at bar. Complainant submitted immoral conduct, or by reason of his
to respondent's solicitation for sexual conviction of a crime involving moral
intercourse not because of a desire for turpitude. A member of the bar should
sexual gratification but because of
have moral integrity in addition to Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino,
professional probity. Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

It is difficult to state with precision and to Fernan (C.J.), took no part.


fix an inflexible standard as to what is
grossly immoral conduct or to specify the Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.
moral delinquency and obliquity which
render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as
a member of the bar. The rule implies that
what appears to be unconventional
behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the immoral conduct that warrants
disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as 'that


which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community' (7 C.J.S.
959).

Where an unmarried female dwarf


possessing the intellect of a child became
pregnant by reason of intimacy with a
married lawyer who was the father of six
children, disbarment of the attorney on the
ground of immoral conduct was justified
(In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896).

In the present case, it was highly immoral


of respondent, a married man with
children, to have taken advantage of his
position as chairman of the college of
medicine in asking complainant, a student
in said college, to go with him to Manila
where he had carnal knowledge of her
under the threat that she would flunk in all
her subjects in case she refused.

WHEREFORE, respondent Jose B. Aznar


is hereby DISBARRED and his name is
ordered stricken off from the Roll of
Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,


Feliciano, Padilla, Gancayco, Bidin,
month. They renewed their relationship.
After they had dinner one night in March,
1971 and finding themselves alone (like
Adam and Eve) in her boarding house
since the other boarders had gone on
vacation, they had sexual congress. When
Segundino asked Magdalena why she had
refused his earlier proposal to have sexual
intercourse with him, she jokingly said that
she was in love with another man and that
she had a child with still another man.
Segundino remarked that even if that be
the case, he did not mind because he
loved her very much.

Thereafter, they had repeated acts of


cohabitation. Segundino started telling his
A.M. No. 1608 August 14, 1981 acquaintances that he and Magdalena
were secretly married.
MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA complainant,
vs. In 1972 Segundino transferred his
SEGUNDINO D. residence to Padada, Davao del Sur. He
MANIWANG respondent. continued his law studies in Davao
City. .Magdalena remained in Cebu. He
sent to her letters and telegrams
professing his love for her (Exh. K to Z).
AQUINO, J.:
When Magdalena discovered in January,
Magdalena T. Arciga in her complaint of 1973 that she was pregnant, she and
February 24, 1976 asked for the Segundino went to her hometown, Ivisan,
disbarment of lawyer Segundino D. Capiz, to apprise Magdalena's parents
Maniwang (admitted to the Bar in 1975 ) on that they were married although they were
the ground of grossly immoral conduct because he refused
to fulfill his promise of marriage to her. Their illicit
not really so. Segundino convinced
relationship resulted in the birth on September 4, 1973 of Magdalena's father to have the church
their child, Michael Dino Maniwang. wedding deferred until after he had
passed the bar examinations. He secured
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted his birth certificate preparatory to applying
sometime in October, 1970 at Cebu City. for a marriage license.
Magdalena was then a medical technology
student in the Cebu Institute of Medicine Segundino continued sending letters to
while Segundino was a law student in the Magdalena wherein he expressed his love
San Jose Recoletos College. They and concern for the baby in Magdalena's
became sweethearts but when Magdalena womb. He reassured her time and again
refused to have a tryst with Segundino in a that he would marry her once he passed
motel in January, 1971, Segundino the bar examinations. He was not present
stopped visiting her. when Magdalena gave birth to their child
on September 4, 1973 in the Cebu
Their paths crossed again during a Community Hospital. He went to Cebu in
Valentine's Day party in the following
December, 1973 for the baptism of his An applicant for admission to the bar
child. should have good moral character. He is
required to produce before this Court
Segundino passed the bar examinations. satisfactory evidence of good moral
The results were released on April 25, character and that no charges against him,
1975. Several days after his oath-taking, involving moral turpitude, have been filed
which Magdalena also attended, he or are pending in any court.
stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
Fearing that there was something amiss, If good moral character is a sine qua
Magdalena went to Davao in July, 1975 to non for admission to the bar, then the
contact her lover. Segundino told her that continued possession of good moral
they could not get married for lack of character is also a requisite for retaining
money. She went back to Ivisan. membership in the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be terminated
In December, 1975 she made another trip when a lawyer ceases to have good moral
to Davao but failed to see Segundino who character (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil.
was then in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. She 865).
followed him there only to be told that their
marriage could not take place because he A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly
had married Erlinda Ang on November 25, immoral conduct, or by reason of his
1975. She was broken-hearted when she conviction of a crime involving moral
returned to Davao. turpitude". A member of the bar should
have moral integrity in addition to
Segundino followed her there and inflicted professional probity.
physical injuries upon her because she
had a confrontation with his wife, Erlinda It is difficult to state with precision and to
Ang. She reported the assault to the fix an inflexible standard as to what is
commander of the Padada police station "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the
and secured medical treatment in a moral delinquency and obliquity which
hospital (Exh. I and J). render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as
a member of the bar. The rule implies that
Segundino admits in his answer that he what appears to be unconventional
and Magdalena were lovers and that he is behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the father of the child Michael. He also the immoral conduct that warrants
admits that he repeatedly promised to disbarment.
marry Magdalena and that he breached
that promise because of Magdalena's Immoral conduct has been defined as
shady past. She had allegedly been "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
accused in court of oral defamation and shameless, and which shows a moral
had already an illegitimate child before indifference to the opinion of the good and
Michael was born. respectable members of the community"
(7 C.J.S. 959).
The Solicitor General recommends the
dismissal of the case. In his opinion, Where an unmarried female dwarf
respondent's cohabitation with the possessing the intellect of a child became
complainant and his reneging on his pregnant by reason of intimacy with a
promise of marriage do not warrant his married lawyer who was the father of six
disbarment. children, disbarment of the attorney on the
ground of immoral conduct was justified agree. (Almirez vs. Lopez, Administrative
(In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896). Case No. 481, February 28, 1969, 27
SCRA 169. See Sarmiento vs. Cui, 100
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct Phil. 1102).
may not be inconsonance with the canons
of the moral code but he is not subject to (2) Where lawyer Francisco Agustin made
disciplinary action because his Anita Cabrera believe that they were
misbehavior or deviation from the path of married before Leoncio V. Aglubat in the
rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is City Hall of Manila, and, after such fake
in connection with a lawyer's behavior to marriage, they cohabited and she later
the opposite sex where the question of give birth to their child (Cabrera vs.
immorality usually arises. Whether a Agustin, 106 Phil. 256).
lawyer's sexual congress with a woman
not his wife or without the benefit of (3) Where lawyer Jesus B. Toledo
marriage should be characterized as abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited
"grossly immoral conduct," will depend on with another women who had borne him a
the surrounding circumstances. child (Toledo vs. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768. As
to disbarment for contracting a bigamous
This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, marriage, see Villasanta vs. Peralta, 101
when old-fashioned morality still prevailed, Phil. 313).
observed that "the legislator well knows
the frailty of the flesh and the ease with (4) The conduct of Abelardo Simbol in
which a man, whose sense of dignity, making a dupe of Concepcion Bolivar by
honor and morality is not well cultivated, living on her bounty and allowing her to
falls into temptation when alone with one spend for his schooling and other personal
of the fair sex toward whom he feels necessities, while dangling before her the
himself attracted. An occasion is so mirage of a marriage, marrying another
inducive to sin or crime that the saying "A girl as soon as he had finished his studies,
fair booty makes many a thief" or "An open keeping his marriage a secret while
door may tempt a saint" has become continuing to demand money from the
general." (People vs. De la Cruz, 48 Phil. complainant, and trying to sponge on her
533, 535). and persuade her to resume their broken
relationship after the latter's discovery of
Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly his perfidy are indicative of a character not
immoral conduct is illustrated in the worthy of a member of the bar (Bolivar vs.
following cases: Simbol, 123 Phil. 450).

(1) Where lawyer Arturo P. Lopez (5) Where Flora Quingwa, a public school
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of teacher, who was engaged to lawyer
Virginia C. Almirez, under promise of Armando Puno, was prevailed upon by
marriage, which he refused to fulfill, him to have sexual congress with him
although they had already a marriage inside a hotel by telling her that it was
license and despite the birth of a child in alright to have sexual intercourse because,
consequence of their sexual intercourse; anyway, they were going to get married.
he married another woman and during She used to give Puno money upon his
Virginia's pregnancy, Lopez urged her to request. After she became pregnant and
take pills to hasten the flow of her gave birth to a baby boy, Puno refused to
menstruation and he tried to convince her marry her. (Quingwa vs. Puno,
to have an abortion to which she did not
Administrative Case No. 389, February 28, According to the complainant, two children
1967, 19 SCRA 439). were born as a consequence of her long
intimacy with the respondent. In 1955, she
(6) Where lawyer Anacleto Aspiras, a filed a complaint for disbarment against
married man, misrepresenting that he was Villanueva.
single and making a promise of marriage,
succeeded in having sexual intercourse This Court found that respondent's refusal
with. Josefina Mortel. Aspiras faked a to marry the complainant was not so
marriage between Josefina and his own corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant
son Cesar. Aspiras wrote to Josefina: disbarment. (See Montana vs. Ruado,
"You are alone in my life till the end of my Administrative Case No. 507, February 24,
years in this world. I will bring you along 1975, 62 SCRA 382; Reyes vs. Wong,
with me before the altar of matrimony." Administrative Case No. 547, January 29,
"Through thick and thin, for better or for 1975, 63 SCRA 667, Viojan vs. Duran,
worse, in life or in death, my Josephine 114 Phil. 322; Abaigar vs. Paz,
you will always be the first, middle and the Administrative Case No. 997, September
last in my life." (Mortel vs. Aspiras, 100 10, 1979,93 SCRA 91).
Phil. 586).
Considering the facts of this case and the
(7) Where lawyer Ariston Oblena, who had aforecited precedents, the complaint for
been having adulterous relations for disbarment against the respondent is
fifteen years with Briccia Angeles, a hereby dismissed.
married woman separated from her
husband, seduced her eighteen-year-old SO ORDERED.
niece who became pregnant and begot a
child. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

The instant case can easily be


differentiated from the foregoing cases.
This case is similar to the case of
Soberano vs. Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206,
where lawyer Eugenio V. Villanueva had
sexual relations with Mercedes H.
Soberano before his admission to the bar
in 1954. They indulged in frequent sexual
intercourse. She wrote to him in 1950 and
1951 several letters making reference to
their trysts in hotels.

On letter in 1951 contain expressions of


such a highly sensual, tantalizing and
vulgar nature as to render them
unquotable and to impart the firm
conviction that, because of the close
intimacy between the complainant and the
respondent, she felt no restraint
whatsoever in writing to him with
impudicity.
A.C. No. 140-J March 8, 1988
AMBROSIO SABAYLE, complainant, fees, transportation expenses and
vs. attorney's fees.
HON. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, ATTY.
CARMELITO B. GABOR and ATTY. By a Resolution dated 3 February 1969,
PABLO B. BADONG, respondents. the Court required the respondents to file
their Answers to the complaint, which all
Carmelito Gabor and Pablo B. Badong for the respondents did in due course.
and in behalf of themselves.
After consideration of the Answers filed by
The Solicitor General for respondents. the respective respondents, the Court, by
a Resolution dated 8 August 1969,
RESOLUTION resolved to dismiss the complaint insofar
as respondent Judge Teodulo C.
Tandayag was concerned, and referred
the case to the Solicitor General for
PER CURIAM: investigation, report and recommendation
insofar as respondent Attorneys Gabor
In a sworn complaint for suspension or and Badong were concerned.
disbarment dated 15 December
l968,complainant Ambrosio Sabayle Fourteen (14) years later, because of the
charged respondent Teodulo C. Tandayag, difficulty of securing the appearance in
then Presiding Judge of the Court of First Manila of the parties who all resided in
Instance of Lanao del Sur, respondent Iligan City, then Assistant Solicitor General
Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor and respondent Eduardo Montenegro referred the case on
Atty. Pablo B. Badong with the following: 28 June 1983 to the City Fiscal of Iligan
City for investigation, report and
Judge Teodulo Tandayag — Misconduct recommendation.
in office, inefficiency and incompetence;
In a Report and Recommendation dated
Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor — Violation of his 23 January 1984, Dominador L. Padilla,
duties as Notary Public by acknowledging City Fiscal of Iligan City, found that
a Deed of Sale in the absence of the respondent Pablo B. Badong had died on
purported vendors and for taking 11 August 1983; that complainant
advantage of his position as Assistant Ambrosio Sabayle had "miserably failed to
Clerk of Court by purchasing one-half (1/2) prove the charges he [had] alleged in his
of the land covered by said Deed of Sale Complaint before the Honorable Supreme
knowing that that Deed of Sale was Court with sufficient evidence" against
fictitious; and both respondents Carmelito B. Gabor and
Pablo B. Badong; and therefore
Atty. Pablo B. Badong — Negligence in recommended that complainant's charges
the performance of his professional duties against both respondents Badong
by failing to file an Opposition to a Motion (deceased) and Gabor be dismissed.
in Civil Case No. IL-43 handled by him for
complainant, and failing to take an appeal On 5 November 1987, the Solicitor
from the decision of the Court of Appeals General filed his Report and
in C.A. G.R. No. 30302-R, dated 5 May Recommendation dated 27 October 1987.
1967, to the Supreme Court after having The background facts, as found by the
received the sum of P4,500.00 as court Solicitor General, may be summed up as
follows:
1. In 1961, the Court of First Instance of 5. Six (6) months after his order releasing
Lanao del Norte, in Civil Case No. IL-43 Mr. Pedro Lim as bondsman under the
entitled "Lucas Sebua, et al. v. Ambrosio Supersedeas Bond, Judge Tandayag set
Sabayle" for enforcement of subsidiary aside his order, upon Motion for
civil liability and for damages, rendered Reconsideration of the Sebuas, principally
judgment against therein defendant because of a circular issued by the
Sabayle requiring him to pay P7,000.00 as Secretary of Justice cancelling the
indemnity for death, moral damages and authority of Manhattan to issue surety
attorney's fees. bonds in court proceedings. Judge
Tandayag reinstated the Supersedeas
2. To avoid execution pending appeal, Bond set up by Mr. Pedro Lim.
Sabayle filed a Supersedeas Bond which,
together with the Record on Appeal and 6. The complainant then discovered that
Appeal Bond, were approved by the judge the document he had signed was an
and forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Absolute Deed of Sale purportedly
Sabayle's appeal was there docketed as transferring ownership of a parcel of land
C.A. G.R. No. 30302-R. owned by Sabayle in favor of Mr. Teopisto
Salcedo, Manager of Manhattan. It also
3. While the case was pending before the appeared that respondent Carmelito B.
Court of Appeals, one of the bondsmen in Gabor had subsequently purchased from
the Supersedeas Bond, Mr. Pedro Lim, Mr. Teopisto Salcedo one-half (1/2) of the
filed an Urgent Motion to Release Movant piece of land purportedly acquired by Mr.
from the Effects of Ms Supersedeas Bond. Salcedo from complainant Sabayle.
Plaintiff-appellee's counsel opposed
Pedro Lim's Motion; respondent Atty. 7. Complainant Sabayle thereupon
Pablo Badong, counsel of defendant a commenced before the Court of First
appellant (Sabayle) did not interpose any Instance of Lanao del Norte Civil Case No.
objection to the Motion. Respondent II-102 (1403) against Mr. Teopisto
Judge Tandayag of the trial court Salcedo, respondent Carmelito B. Gabor
approved Mr. Pedro Lim's Motion in an and the Iligan City Register of Deeds for
order dated 21 December 1967 which also annulment of the Absolute Deed of Sale.
approved a Surety Bond filed by During the pendency of this Civil Case for
complainant Sabayle in lieu of the real annulment, complainant Sabayle and Mr.
property of Pedro Lim. Teopisto Salcedo entered into a
Compromise Agreement dated 25 May
4. Complainant Sabayle had shortly before 1973. In this Agreement, Mr. Salcedo
obtained a Surety Bond from the admitted "that the Absolute Deed of Sale
Manhattan Guarantee Company, Inc. acknowledged before Notary Public
(Manhattan, in brief) and submitted a Carmelito B. Gabor was absolutely
piece of land owned by him to Manhattan simulated or fictitious," the supposed
as collateral supporting what Sabayle purchase price never having been paid by
believed to be his indemnity agreement. Mr. Salcedo to the complainant and the
Both the Surety Bond issued by parties never having intended to enter into
Manhattan and the document signed by such contract of sale, and that Mr. Salcedo
complainant Sabayle which later turned had never taken possession of the land
out to be an Absolute Deed of Sale, were referred to in the Deed of Sale. Mr.
notarized by respondent Carmelito B. Salcedo admitted, further, that
Gabor. complainant was "owner in fee simple and
the actual possessor" of the land
described in the Absolute Deed of Sale. inordinate amount of time to complete and
The Compromise Agreement was his family is entitled to know the outcome.
approved by the court which then
rendered, on 5 November 1975, a Complainant Sabayle charged deceased
decision which declared: (1) the Absolute respondent Pablo B. Badong with
Deed of Sale dated 26 October 1967 negligence in the performance of his
allegedly executed by Sabayle in favor of professional duties as counsel of Sabayle,
Teopisto Salcedo and notarized by consisting of failure to file an Opposition to
Carmelito B. Gabor; and (2) the Deed of the Motion of bondsman Pedro Lim to be
Sale allegedly executed by Teopisto relieved from the effects of his
Salcedo in favor of Carmelito B. Gabor supersedeas bond, and to appeal from the
and notarized by Melvin Salise as null and decision of the Court of appeals in C.A.
void, and complainant Sabayle to be the G.R. No. 30302-R dated 5 May 1967. In
owner of the land involved. The court also his Answer, deceased respondent Badong
ordered Carmelito B. Gabor to pay explained that it was complainant Sabayle
Sabayle P1,000.00 as attorney's fees and himself who had been interested in
expenses of litigation. effecting the release of bondsman Pedro
Lim, since Mr. Lim had merely
8. Complainant Sabayle had also filed a accommodated Sabayle and since Mr. Lim
complaint for falsification of public wished to sell his piece of land, the title of
document with the Office of the City Fiscal which had been annotated with a lien by
of Iligan City. This complaint was reason of the supersedeas bond. Mr. 1

dismissed on the ground that the evidence Badong, further, explained in his Answer
adduced was not clear and convincing. that he had been retained by complainant
Sabayle after the Court of Appeals had
9. Complainant Sabayle also filed with the already rendered judgment affirming the
Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte decision of the trial court and that he was
administrative charges against respondent unable to appeal the decision of the Court
Carmelito B. Gabor for serious misconduct, of Appeals to this Court because Sabayle
dishonesty, and acts unbecoming an did not have complete records of his case,
Assistant Clerk of Court. The trial Judge in particular, the appellant's Brief and the
recommended dropping of this Record on Appeal filed before the Court of
administrative charge apparently upon the Appeals. Respondent Badong had
ground that the involvement of Atty. requested the Court of Appeals to allow
Carmelito B. Gabor in the transaction was him to borrow or withdraw a copy of the
not shown to have been "in his (official) Record on Appeal and the appellant's
capacity as Assistant Clerk of Court." Brief on file with the Court of Appeals but
the Court of Appeals denied his Motion as
In his Report and Recommendation, the well as his Motion for a rehearing or
Solicitor General recommended dismissal reconsideration of the decision of the
of the charges against respondent Court of Appeals. Finally, in his Answer,
deceased Pablo B. Badong as moot and respondent Badong also urged as a
academic. While these charges may well counter-charge against complainant
be regarded as moot and academic, we Sabayle that the latter be punished for
believe that in the present case, these contempt of court for deliberate falsehood
may and should be disposed of on the and perjury.
merits. It was not the deceased's fault that
these proceedings have taken such an The record also shows that on 11 October
1973, complainant Sabayle and deceased
respondent Badong filed with the Office of The movants, accordingly, prayed that the
the Solicitor General a "Joint Motion to administrative charges against respondent
Dismiss charges as against Atty. Pablo B. Badong be dismissed or recommended for
Badong only, etc." dated 5 October 1973. dismissal by this Court and that Badong's
This Joint Motion stated, in relevant part: , counter-charges against complainant
Sabayle be similarly dismissed.
1. That complainant impleaded
respondent Atty. Pablo B. Badong due The above Joint Motion was, however,
entirely to some misapprehension of facts dismissed by Solicitor Celso P. Ylagan in
and premises; complainant thought then an order dated 27 March 1974, upon the
that his said former counsel in Civil Case ground that "settlement with a client on the
No. 11, 43, C.A. G.R. No. 30302-R did basis satisfactory to him does not preclude
nothing to advance and protect his interest inquiries into the moral and professional
in said case; but now, after careful quality of an attorney's acts prior to or in
examination of the record and deliberate connection therewith (People vs.
consideration of the premises, Chamberline, 242 III, 260). The Court will
complainant is sufficiently convinced and not permit matters affecting the character
abundantly persuaded that the said of its officers to be settled by private
respondent was not remiss in the agreement (In Re: 9 L.T. Reports N.S.
discharge of his professional duties to me 299).
and that he did in fact try his best as a
lawyer, to protect my interest; We note that the order of Solicitor Ylagan
did not purport to rule on the factual or
2. That accordingly, I do not find any non-factual character of the statements
bases for further prosecuting my said made in the Joint Motion to Dismiss
administrative charges against Atty. Pablo Charges. Indeed, Solicitor Ylagan appears
B. Badong; that I stand satisfied with the to have issued his order of dismissal
services he had rendered; and I affirm my because the administrative case was then
faith and confidence in him as a lawyer still under investigation, certainly as
and a member of the Bar, and as an officer against respondent Carmelito B. Gabor.
of this Court; and that he had not been Upon the other hand, the Court notes that
remiss in the discharge of his trust as a the City Fiscal of Iligan City had concluded
number of the legal profession; in his report to the Solicitor General dated
23 January 1984 that:
3. That in his Answer to the Complaint in
the above entitled case, on the other hand, Examining, however, the answer filed by
the said respondent Atty. Pablo B. Badong Atty. Badong together with Ms several
pressed counter- charged against the annexes therein we can conclude that Atty.
above-named complainant; with the spirit Badong was not negligent at all in the
of mutual respect and amity restored handling of complainant's case before the
between him and the complainant, for the Honorable Court of appeals. In fact, Atty.
sake of community peace and better Badong has exhausted all the limits
understanding, the said respondent is no available under the Rules of Court for the
longer interested in the further prosecution case of complainant. This is supported by
of the said counter-charges and asks that all the pleadings he has filed before the
the same be, also, dropped; Honorable Court of Appeals in Civil Case
No. IL-43, entitled "Lucas Sebua v.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasies supplied) Ambrosio Sabayle. (Emphasis supplied)
After careful examination of the records of transfer to the other defendant Carmelito
this case, the Court agrees with the above Gabor when he in turn executed the deed
evaluation of Iligan City Fiscal Dominador of sale in the latter's favor. The defendant
Padilla. Complainant Sabayle had in fact Carmelito Gabor, therefore, on his part
retracted his charges against deceased cannot claim any right arising from this
respondent Badong and admitted that he document allegedly executed in his favor
(Sabayle) had been mistaken in his by the defendant Salcedo. This is more
charges. accentuated by the fact that he never
came into the possession of this property
Turning to the charges against respondent allegedly sold to him which is very clear in
Carmelito B. Gabor, the Solicitor General its significance. It further proves that the
found that: deed of sale executed between him and
Salcedo, like the first deed of sale
Respondent indeed was guilty of admitted by Salcedo to be simulated and
Misconduct in violation of his oath as a fictitious, is also simulated and fictitious. (p.
member of the bar. VII, Decision, Nov. 5, 1975, Annex "D").

The Decision of the Trial Court in Civil Respondent does not deny that he
Case No. II-102 for Annulment of a Deed notarized the disputed Deed of Sale, but
of Sale (Annex D) is a mute but highly claims that complainant and his wife were
credible evidence that the Deed of Sale present when he ratified the document.
executed by complainant with Mr.
Teopisto Salcedo is truly simulated and The finding of the Trial Court, however,
fictitious, for lack of consent and that the Deed of Sale is fictitious . gives
consideration. The Decision shows that credence to the charge that respondent
respondent Gabor never attended any of ratified the document in the absence of
the hearings of the case. Neither did he complainant and his wife, which, needless
present evidence. On top of these, he did to say, constitutes Page censurable
not appeal the Decision, indicating his conduct.
agreement with the Court's findings.
In the same vein, we do not agree with
xxx xxx xxx respondent's defense that he did not
participate in the preparation of the
The Trial Court, in its Decision in Civil fictitious Deed of Sale.
Case No. II-102, for Annulment of a Deed
of Sale, found: A lawyer, who through negligence fails to
discover the falsity of a document which
It having been established that the deed of he uses in connection with the
sale allegedly executed by the plaintiff in performance of his functions may be dealt
favor of the defendant Salcedo is truly with administratively for failure to exercise
simulated and fictitious for lack of consent care, notwithstanding lack of intent on his
and consideration and, null and void, it part to deceive (Berenguer vs. Carranza,
necessarily follows that the defendant G.R. Adm. Case No. 716, Jan. 1969,26
Teopisto Salcedo never became the SCRA 673). (Emphasis supplied)
owner of the property mentioned in the
deed of sale. Neither did he acquire any Here, not only did respondent knand
right thereto from the execution of this Mr.ow of the fictitious sale between
fictitious deed of sale. As a consequence, complainanto Teopisto Salcedo, so that
the defendant Salcedo had nothing to the latter did not have any right to transfer
to him a portion of the land, respondent legal profes sion are not satisfied by
also maliciously participated in the Deed conduct which merely enables one to
of Sale purportedly transferring to him escape the penalties of the criminal law. It
one-half of the property for sufficient would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to
consideration. Such conduct, constitutes receive one whose integrity is
willful disregard of his solemn duty as an questionable as an officer of the court, to
attorney to act at all times in a manner clothe him with all the prestige of its
consistent with truth and honor. confidence, and then to permit him to hold
himself out as a duly authorized member
We agree with the findings of the Solicitor of the bar. (In re Terrell [903], 2 Phil., 266;
General in respect of respondent People ex rel. Colorado Bar Association
Carmelito B. Gabor. A lawyer who vs. Thomas [1906], 36 Colo., 126; 10 Ann.
knowingly takes part in a false and Cas., 886 and note; People vs. Macauley
simulated transaction not only by [1907], 230 III 208; Ex parte Wall [1882],
notarizing a simulated Deed of Sale but 107 U.S., 265.). 3

also by sharing in the profits flowing from


defrauding of the victim through such ACCORDINGLY,the Court Resolved to
transaction by acquiring half of the DISMISS the charges against deceased
property sought to be transferred by the respondent Pablo B. Badong as moot and
false transaction, is guilty of serious academic and for lack of merit. Let a copy
dishonesty and professional misconduct. of this Resolution be furnished to the
There is a strong public interest involved in family of the deceased respondent Pablo
requiring lawyers who, as officers of the B. Badong.
courts, participate in the dispensation of
justice to behave at all times in a manner The Court, further, resolved to DISBAR
consistent with truth and honor. It is respondent Carmelito B. Gabor and to
important that the common caricature that STRIKE his name from the Roll of
lawyers by and large do not feel compelled attorneys and to REQUIRE him to
to speak the truth and to act honestly, surrender his Attorney's Certificate to the
should not become common reality. It is Clerk of this Court forthwith. This
equally important that lawyers not be Resolution is immediately executory.
allowed to profit from their own dishonest
acts. This injunction is of particular SO ORDERED.
importance for Notaries Public who are
authorized by law to convert private Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa,
writings into public instruments and to Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz,
warrant the genuineness and Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
voluntariness of such instruments by Sarmiento, Cortes and Griño-Aquino, JJ.,
acknowledging them. concur.

In re Del Rosario, Mr. Justice Malcolm


2
Footnotes
stressed the standards required from
members of the legal profession:

... The practice of the law is not an A.C. No. 1417 April 17, 1996
absolute right to be granted every one
who demands it, but is a privilege to be INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT
extended or withheld in the exercise of a SERVICES CORPORATION, petitioner,
sound discretion. The standards of the
vs. sent to respondent at his Malate address
LEODEGARIO V. ROXAS, respondent. was returned "unclaimed.

The Court, on 16 January 1978, directed


the Clerk of Court to mail the copy of the
VITUG, J.:p petition to respondent at 89 Igualdad
(Equalidad) Street, Lemery, Batangas,
The administrative proceedings against Atty. Leodegario V. which was respondent's permanent
Roxas started way back in 1975 when a petition for
"disbarment or suspension" was filed, on 03 January of that
address shown in his petition to take the
year, by the Investment and Management Services Bar Examinations. Respondent was given
Corporation. The petition averred that the complainant another ten (10) days within which to
managed three corporations in the Philippines, to wit:
Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc., Prime Trading Corporation and answer the petition. The Court further
Luzon Leather Industries, Inc. Respondent lawyer, while he resolved to refer the matter to the Office of
was still petitioner's Administrative and Legal Officer,
allegedly "misappropriated or appropriated for his own use
the Solicitor General ("OSG") for
and benefit certain sums of money or checks which he investigation, report and recommendation
received in trust . . . from the Prime Trading Corporation after the expiration of the ten-day period,
and Luzon Leather Industries, Inc. amounting to P2,623.80,
from the debtors of Luzon Leather Industries, Inc. with or without respondent's answer, in
amounting to P3,444.00, and from a number of employees order to avoid a further delay in the
of the Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc. amounting to P1,749.50
or a (grand) total of P7,817.30."1 In addition, according to
proceedings.
petitioner, respondent issued bouncing checks to pay for
personal obligations. On 27 April 1990, the OSG, through
Assistant Solicitor General Edgardo L.
In the Court's resolution of 13 January Kilayko, transmitted to the Court its report,
1975, respondent was required to file an with the recommendation that respondent
answer to the petition within ten (10) days be suspended for five (5) years from the
from notice. The resolution was sent to his practice of law. A separate complaint was
address at 647 John Glenn Street, filed by the OSG with the Court.
Moonwalk Subdivision, Phase II,
Parañaque, Rizal. There was no response. In its resolution, dated 04 June 1990, the
On 08 September 1977, or more than two Court required respondent to file his
and a half years later, respondent filed a answer to the administrative complaint
"Motion for Substitution of Xerox Copy of filed by the OSG within fifteen (15) days
the Petition" supposedly because the copy from notice.
sent to him was not legible in certain
portions that thereby prevented him from
In his answer, filed on 20 July 1990,
preparing an answer. He asked that the
respondent denied the charges claiming
ten-day period within which to file his
that they were merely intended to harass
answer be counted from his receipt of a
or embarrass him. Respondent, this time,
new copy of the petition. He listed his
indicated his address at 2310-D San
address at 566-B Pedro Gil Street, Malate,
Anton Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
Manila.
The OSG filed its reply on 17 January
In a manifestation, dated 23 September
1991, averring that respondent's general
1977, petitioner informed the court that
denial should be deemed an admission of
respondent was furnished with a legible
the material allegations of the complaint.
copy of the petition per Registry Receipt
No. 12212. On 20 December 1977,
In the resolution of 04 February 1991, the
petitioner filed a second manifestation
matter was referred by the Court to the
stating that the legible copy of the petition
Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP").
On 08 November 1995, IBP Director for Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
Bar Discipline Agustinus V. Gonzaga governing Disbarment and Discipline of
transmitted to the Court the records of the Attorneys, if the IBP Board of Governors,
case, as well as the notice and copy of the by a majority vote of its total membership,
decision, viz: determines that a lawyer should be
suspended from the practice of law or
Please take notice that on February 18, disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting
1995 a resolution was passed by the forth its findings and recommendations.
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar The resolution, together with the whole
of the Philippines in the above-entitled record of the case, shall then be
case the original of which is now on file in transmitted to the Supreme Court for final
this office, quote: action. In its resolution of 25 February
3

1992, the Court also directed; thus:


RESOLUTION NO. X1-95-287
Adm. Case No. 1417 Re-Cases involving the imposition of the
Investment and Management penalty of suspension or fine upon lawyers.
Services Corporation vs. — The Court En Banc RESOLVED that
Atty. Leodegario V. Roxas effective today, all cases involving the
imposition of the penalty of suspension or
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, fine upon lawyers shall be decided either
as it is hereby ADOPTED and by Division or En Banc conformably with
APPROVED, the Report of the the following rules:
Investigating Commissioner in the
above-entitled case, herein made part of (1) If the penalty of suspension is imposed
this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A;" for a period of one (1) year or less, the
and finding the recommendation therein to resolution of a case shall be by the
be fully supported by the evidence on Division concerned; if the penalty exceeds
record and the applicable law and rules, one (1) year, resolution shall be by the
respondent is hereby SUSPENDED for Court En Banc;
One (1) month from the practice of law. 2

(2) If the penalty imposed is a fine of


From the Commissioner's Report, dated P10,000 or less, the resolution shall be by
30 January 1995, it would appear that the the Division concerned; if more than
case had been set for hearing a number of P10,000 resolution will be by the Court En
times but both complainant and Banc;
respondent failed to appear. While the
notices sent to respondent at his (3) In case both suspension and a fine are
Sampaloc address were at first received involved, resolution shall be by the
by him, later communication, however, Court En Banc if the suspension exceeds
remained "unclaimed." The report noted one (1) year or the fine exceeds P10,000.
that for lack of evidence, the complaint
should be dismissed; however, it added (4) In case of two or more suspensions of
that respondent's "actuations," supra, in the lawyer, service of the same will be
the course of the proceedings deserved successive, not simultaneous.
disciplinary sanctions. IBP, adopting the
Commissioner's Report, ordered the Accordingly, we shall take the IBP
suspension of respondent from the decision ordering the one-month
practice of law for a period of one (1) suspension of respondent to be merely
month. recommendatory.
After a thorough review of the case, we
find nothing to warrant a reversal of the
findings of the IBP; indeed, the Court
believes, given the circumstances, that a
more severe penalty than that
recommended needs to be imposed.

Respondent clearly had no intention to


squarely face the charges against him. By
repeatedly changing his address without
informing the investigating officials or the
Court he somehow managed to evade the
administrative investigation for, after years
of delay, no longer could complainant
corporation be reached to substantiate its
charges. The Court cannot take the matter
lightly.

A lawyer must constantly conduct himself


with great propriety. He is also an officer of
the court, and he owes to it, as well as to
his peers, utmost respect and fidelity. His
relationship with others should no less be
characterized than by the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor. When
4

he took the oath as a member of the legal


profession, he made a solemn promise to
so stand by those pledges. In this
covenant, respondent lawyer has
miserably failed.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Leodegario V. Roxas


is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS
effective upon his receipt of this decision.

Let a copy hereof be entered in


respondent's personal record as attorney
and member of the Bar, and furnished the
Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. The Court Administrator is
directed to circulate this order of
suspension to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi