Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
SO ORDERED.
(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).
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
... 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.
SO ORDERED.