A.C. No. 12467 [Formerly CBD Case No.

16-5072] On January 16, 1995, the Spouses Frias left for South Cotabato, leaving whatever they owned
in Capiz. Despite all medical treatments they could afford with their savings, Susana died in
SPOUSES PEPITO AND PRESCILA FRIAS, Complainants 2000 in South Cotabato.
vs.
ATTY. NELLY E. ABAO, Respondent Sometime in 2000, the Spouses Frias learned that Rodrigo Arbiz died. Later, in 2005, they
also learned that Rodrigo Arbiz's wife, Maria, also died. They discovered that the heirs of the
DECISION Spouses Arbiz, Jermehilda Escutin and Danilo Escutin, took possession of the subject
property.
PERALTA, J.:
The Spouses Frias alleged that even after the death of the Spouses Arbiz, they could not return
1
to Dao, Capiz because they respected the alleged lease agreement. After the expiration of the
Before us is a Complaint  for Disciplinary Action dated September 1, 2016 filed by the lease contract, they decided to return to Capiz, and claim the subject property as they believed
spouses Pepito Frias and Prescila Chavez Frias (Spouses Frias) against respondent Atty. Nelly to be entitled thereto. However, the Spouses Escutin refused to turnover the possession of the
E. Abao (Atty. Abao) for violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional subject property. Thus, the Spouses Frias filed a complaint for ejectment against the Spouses
Responsibility and of the Notarial Law. Escutin.

The facts are as follows: In their Answer, the Spouses Escutin argued that the subject property was sold to their parents
by the Spouses Frias. They attached a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995
Complainant Pepito Frias, married to Prescila Chavez, is the registered owner of a parcel of purportedly executed by complainants in favor of the parents of the Spouses Escutin.2
land known as Lot No. 3270-A, Psd-06-000781, situated at Barangay Malonoy, Dao, Capiz,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-14354 (subject property). The Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by herein respondent Atty. Abao on July 11, 1995,
as document no. 106, found on page 23, Book No. LVIX.3 However, the Spouses Frias
The Spouses Frias narrated that in early 1900s, Susana Frias, their daughter, was enduring a insisted that they did not execute any document of conveyance of the said parcel of land to
heart disease. Because of financial difficulties, they accepted the offer of one of their anybody. They claimed that it was impossible for them to execute the said Deed of Absolute
daughters who was then residing in Mindanao, to bring Susana to Davao for treatment. Before Sale on July 11, 1995 because at that time they already left for Mindanao and never came back
they left, the Spouses Frias asked Rodrigo Arbiz, and his wife, Maria, the parents of to Dao, Capiz, until April 4, 2015.
Jermehilda Escutin, if they could lend them money to cover for their transportation to
Mindanao and the medical expenses of Susana. Although the Spouses Arbiz agreed to lend The Spouses Frias then searched for an original copy of the deed of absolute sale with the
them some money, they demanded that the Spouses Frias secure the loan with the subject Clerk of Court of Roxas City. The Clerk of Court of Roxas City, Atty. Jelou F. Almalbis-
property, for twenty years. Laguna, issued a Certification4 dated November 3, 2015 stating that the deed of absolute sale
executed by Pepito Frias and Prescila Frias in favor of Rodrigo Arbiz and Maria L. Arbiz
Because the Spouses Frias were unsure of their capacity to pay back the loan in time, and were under Doc. No. 106, Page 23, Book No. LVIX dated July 11, 1995 and notarized by Atty.
afraid they might lose the subject property if they failed to settle the loan, they allegedly Abao does not exist. It further certified that respondent Atty. Abao was never commissioned
offered instead to lease the property to the Spouses Arbiz, instead of mortgaging it to them. as Notary Public in the City of Roxas, Province of Capiz for the year 1995 and had no notarial
files on record for the same year.5
Rodrigo Arbis allegedly accepted the offer to lease the subject property, and gave them the
amount of ₱340,000,00. Both parties agreed that: (1) the Spouses Frias would not have any The Spouses Frias, likewise, lamented that while Atty. Abao admitted that she notarized the
obligation to give back the amount of ₱340,000.00 to Rodrigo Arbiz; (2) Rodrigo Arbiz and Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by them, she, however, made false statements in
his wife would possess the subject property for twenty years, that is from January 16, 1995 to her Judicial Affidavit6 dated July 28, 2016 wherein she alleged that: (1) Pepito Frias was
January 16, 2015, and enjoy the use and produce of the land; (3) Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife present when she notarized the said document; (2) Prescila Frias was present when she
would be responsible to pay for the real estate taxes due on the property because it would be notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale; and (3) Pepito Frias and Prescila Frias affixed their
difficult for the Spouses Frias to pay them while they were in Mindanao; (4) the Spouses Frias signatures in the said Deed of Absolute Sale.7
would not disturb Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife's possession of the property until after the
expiration of twenty years; and (5) the Spouses Frias would entrust the original owner's Thus, the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Abao for violation of Rule 1.01 of
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-14354 that covers the subject property to Rodrigo Arbiz and his Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
wife. These agreements, however, were not put into writing as it was the usual practice those
days.
On October 3, 2016, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) ordered Atty. Abao to submit her answer to the complaint against her.8
In her Answer9 dated November 14, 2016, Atty. Abao admitted that she notarized the subject Clearly, for misrepresenting in the subject Deed of Absolute Sale that she was a notary public
Deed of Absolute Sale without the necessary notarial commission to do so. She offered no for and in Dao, Capiz, when in fact she was not, Atty. Abao further committed a form of
valid excuse for her unauthorized notarial act. She denied having notarized a fictitious deed of falsehood which is undoubtedly anathema to the lawyer's oath. Atty. Abao's misdeeds run
absolute sale, and maintained that complainants personally appeared and signed the subject afoul of her duties and responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public.
Deed of Absolute Sale before her.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Abao
Meanwhile, on November 29, 2016, the complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the Spouses violated not only her oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but
Frias against the Spouses Escutin, docketed as Civil Case No. V-376, was dismissed.10 also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to
In its Report and Recommendation11 dated September 19, 2017, the IBP-CBD found Atty. uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.16
Abao liable for notarizing documents without a notarial commission and for executing an
untruthful judicial affidavit. For notarizing a document without commission, the IBP-CBD In the case of Nunga v. Atty. Viray,17 the Court appropriately held that where the notarization
recommended that Atty. Abao be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, and of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no
that if she is presently commissioned as notary public, she be disqualified from being authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For
commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. Further, for executing an one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to
untruthful judicial affidavit and testifying thereon, the IBP-CBD, likewise, recommended a obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall
In a Resolution12 dated June 29, 2018, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved the squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD on the recommended penalty. Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."18
RULING
In a number of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for notarizing
documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. In Zoreta v.
We agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD, except as to use recommended penalty. Atty. Simpliciano,19 the respondent was, likewise, suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and public for notarizing several documents after the expiration of his commission. In the case
routine act.1âшphi1 It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are of Judge Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana,20 the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.13 It must be emphasized that the act of and was disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years,
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making because he notarized documents outside the area of his commission, and with an expired
that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial commission. In the more recent case of Japitana v. Atty. Parado,21 following the Court's
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries pronouncements in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,22 the lawyer was suspended
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their for two (2) years from the practice of law and forever barred from becoming a notary public
duties. when he notarized documents with no existing notarial commission.

In the present case, it is undisputable that Atty. Abao performed notarial acts on the subject Considering that Atty. Abao has been proven to nave performed notarial work in Dao, Capiz,
deed of absolute sale knowing fully well that; she was without a valid notarial commission. without the requisite commission, the Court finds the recommended penalty insufficient.
Her lack of notarial commission at the time of the unauthorized notarization was likewise Likewise, Atty. Abao's assertion of old age and sickness fails to convince, considering that at
sufficiently established by the Certification issued by Atty. Jelou F. Almalbis-Laguna, Clerk the time of the commission of the unauthorized act of notarizing, she was only fifty-four (54)
of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, years old. Instead, Atty. Abao must be barred from being commissioned as notary public
Roxas City in the territory where Atty. Abao performed the unauthorized notarial permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.23
act.14 Clearly, Atty. Abao could not perform notarial functions in Dao, Capiz, since she was
not commissioned in the places to perform such act in the year 1995. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao is found GUILTY of malpractice as a
notary public, and violating the lawyer's oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as a notary public may Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public,
for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the effective upon her receipt of a copy of this Decision.
commissioning is made. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform notarial or
the written evidence of authority.15 Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform
any of the notarial acts.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Office of the of DISBARMENT. Respondent is further ORDERED to immediately RETURN the loan
Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, proceeds amounting to ₱1,000,000.00 and to pay legal interest at the rate of twelve percent
and be recorded in the personal files of Atty. Abao. (12%) per annum computed from the release of the loan on February 15, 2011 up to June 30,
2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid, as well as, the
SO ORDERED. ₱l20,000.00 received for the purpose of transferring the title in the name of the complainant
and to pay legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum computed from receipt
of the amount on February 3, 2011 up to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from
July 1, 2013 until fully paid. He is likewise ORDERED to RETURN all other documents
pertinent to the loan obtained from PHCCI and those received from complainant.
A.C. No. 11095
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO, Complainant, the personal record of respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the
vs. Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and
ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI, Respondent. guidance.

RESOLUTION This Decision shall be immediately executory.

PER CURIAM: SO ORDERED.3

Before the Court is a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution1 filed by Complainant Eufemia In the present Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, complainant now prays for the
A. Camino, relative to the Court's Per Curiam Decision dated September 20, 2016 in A.C. No. issuance of a Writ of Execution for the enforcement of the said judgment.
11095.
Generally, once a judgment or order becomes final and executory, the judgment obligee may
In a Disbarment Complaint dated July 13, 2011 filed by complainant against respondent Atty. file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in the court of origin as provided for under
Ryan Rey L. Pasagui (Atty. Pasagui) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission Rule 39, Sec. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, viz.:
on Bar Discipline (IBP-CED), docketed as CBD Case No. 11-3140, now A.C. No. 11095,
complainant alleged, among other things, that respondent violated their agreement for the
latter to facilitate and secure a loan in order to finance the payment of necessary expenses to SEC. 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. - Execution shall issue as a matter of
transfer the title of a certain property under her name. She claimed that respondent obtained a right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the
loan in her name and that of her husband, using their property as collateral, but Atty. Pasagui expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
arrogated the proceeds thereof to himself.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be
In a Per Curiam Decision2 dated September 20, 2016, the Court, ruling in favor of the applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith
complainant, found that respondent was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct for certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be
converting the money of his client to his own personal use without her consent. By his failure enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
to make good of their agreement to use the proceeds of the loan for the transfer of the title in
complainant's name, Atty. Pasagui not only betrayed the trust and confidence reposed upon The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires,
him by his client, but he is likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. For direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
his acts, Atty. Pasagui degraded himself and besmirched the fair name of an honorable
profession. Thus, the Court affirmed the findings and conclusions of the IBP Board of Likewise, a judgment or final order may also be executed pending appeal as provided for in
Governors, but modified the recommended penalty and instead imposed the penalty to Rule 39, Sec. 2, as follows:
Disbarment. The Court also ordered Atty. Pasagui to return the loan proceeds he received from
Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. (PHCCI) on behalf of the complainant, with interest,
together with all the documents pertinent to the loan application and those he received from SEC. 2. Discretionary execution. -
the complainant, to wit:
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. - On motion of the prevailing
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XXI-2014-938 dated December 14, 2014 of the IBP-Board party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the
of Governors which found respondent Atty. Ryan Rey L. Pasagui GUILTY of violation of case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of
as to the penalty. Respondent Atty. Ryan Rey L. Pasagui is instead meted the penalty a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed 2016) for prompt service and implementation either directly or by a duly authorized
in the appellate court. deputy sheriff.

Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after The legal fees for the service and implementation of the Writ of Execution as provided in
due hearing. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court shall be paid by respondent ATTY. PASAGUI.

(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. - A several, separate or partial The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Tacloban City is hereby expressly
judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or authorized to oversee the proceedings of execution; act on and resolve any incident
final order pending appeal. arising therefrom; issue alias writ of execution, if necessary, as if the judgment under
execution was rendered by the Regional Trial Court; receive and approve the Sheriff’s
Corollarily, judgments declared to be immediately executory, as in the present case, are Return on satisfaction (full or partial) or failure of satisfaction; and to submit a final
enforceable after their rendition. Similar to judgments or orders that become final and Report on the execution to the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court.
executory, the execution of the decision in the case at bar is already a matter of right. 4 The
judgment obligee may, therefore, file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in the Complainant "EUFEMIA A. CAMINO is directed to hereafter deal with the Clerk of
court of origin as provided for under Rule 39, Sec. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Court and Ex Officio Sheriff of Tacloban City in relation to the enforcement of the
decision promulgated in this adminisrative matter.
In this particular case, however, the case did not originate from the lower courts, but instead is
an original action for disbarment filed by the complainant against Atty. Pasagui, accusing the SO ORDERED.
latter of Estafa through Abuse of Confidence. 5

Consequently, pursuant to Section 6,6 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, the Clerk of Court of the
Supreme Court should issue the Writ of Execution prayed for. But, in as much as this Court A.C. No. 4191               June 10, 2013
does not have a sheriff of its own to execute its own decision and considering that the
complainant resides in Tacloban City, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Tacloban City is directed to
execute the money judgment against the respondent in accordance with Rule 39, Section 97 of ANITA C. PENA, Complainant,
the Rules of Court. Likewise, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Tacloban City is ordered to enforce vs.
the Court's directive for respondent to return all the pertinent documents in his possession to ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent.
the complainant pursuant to Section 118 of the Rules of Court.
DECISION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT complainant's Motion
for Issuance of Writ of Execution by DIRECTING the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court PER CURIAM:
to issue the Writ of Execution prayed for ORDERING respondent ATTY. RYAN REY L.
PASAGUI: This is an administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno for acts
violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.
1. To IMMEDIATELY RETURN to complainant EUFEMIA A. CAMINO the amount of
₱l,000,000.00, plus interest of 12% per annum from February 15, 2011 up to June 30, On February 14, 1994, complainant Anita C. Peña, former head of the Records Department of
2013; and interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid; the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), filed an Affidavit-Complaint1 against
respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno. Complainant alleged that she was the owner of a parcel
2. To pay to complainant EUFEMIA A. CAMINO the further amount of ₱120,000.00, of land known as Lot 7-C, Psd-74200, located in Bayanbayanan, Parang, Marikina, Metro
plus interest of 12% per annum from February 3, 2011 up to June 30, 2013; and interest Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-61244,2 Register of Deeds of
of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid; and Marikina, with an eight-door apartment constructed thereon. She personally knew respondent
Atty. Christina C. Paterno, as respondent was her lawyer in a legal separation case, which she
3. To forthwith return to complainant EUFEMIA A. CAMINO all other documents filed against her husband in 1974, and the aforementioned property was her share in their
pertinent to the loan obtained from PHCCI and those received from complainant. property settlement. Complainant stated that she also knew personally one Estrella D. Kraus,
as she was respondent's trusted employee who did secretarial work for respondent. Estrella
Kraus was always there whenever she visited respondent in connection with her cases.
The Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court shall transmit the Writ of Execution to the
Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court in Tacloban City (with
the certified copies of this Resolution and the decision promulgated on September 20,
Moreover, complainant stated that, sometime in 1986, respondent suggested that she the agreed price. Complainant allegedly told respondent that she would inform respondent
(complainant) apply for a loan from a bank to construct townhouses on her property for sale to when the transaction was completed so that the Deed of Sale could be recorded in the Notarial
interested buyers, and that her property be offered as collateral. Respondent assured Book. Thereafter, respondent claimed that she had no knowledge of what transpired between
complainant that she would work out the speedy processing and release of the loan. complainant and the Spouses Kraus. Respondent stated that she was never entrusted with
Complainant agreed, but since she had a balance on her loan with the GSIS, respondent lent complainant's certificate of title to her property in Marikina (TCT No. N-61244). Moreover, it
her the sum of ₱27,000.00, without any interest, to pay the said loan. When her title was was only complainant who negotiated the sale of her property in favor of Krisbuilt Traders
released by the GSIS, complainant entrusted it to respondent who would handle the Company, Ltd. According to respondent, complainant's inaction for eight years to verify what
preparation of documents for the loan and follow-up the same, and complainant gave happened to her property only meant that she had actually sold the same, and that she
respondent the authority for this purpose. From time to time, complainant inquired about the concocted her story when she saw the prospect of her property had she held on to it.
application for the loan, but respondent always assured her that she was still preparing the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case.
documents required by the bank. Because of her assurances, complainant did not bother to
check on her property, relying on respondent's words that she would handle speedily the On February 28, 1995, complainant filed a Reply,6 belying respondent's allegations and
preparation of her application. affirming the veracity of her complaint.

Further, complainant narrated that when she visited her property, she discovered that her On March 20, 1995, this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
apartment was already demolished, and in its place, four residential houses were constructed investigation and recommendation.7 On April 18, 1996, complainant moved that hearings be
on her property, which she later learned was already owned by one Ernesto D. Lampa, who scheduled by the Commission on Bar Discipline. On November 8, 1999, the case was set for
bought her property from Estrella D. Kraus. Complainant immediately confronted respondent its initial hearing, and hearings were conducted from March 21, 2000 to July 19, 2000.
about what she discovered, but respondent just brushed her aside and ignored her. After
verification, complainant learned that her property was sold on November 11, 1986 to
Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., and respondent was the Notary Public before whom the sale On August 3, 2000, complainant filed her Formal Offer of Evidence. Thereafter, hearings for
was acknowledged.3 Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., through its Managing Partner, Estrella the reception of respondent's evidence were set, but supervening events caused their
D. Kraus, sold the same to one Ernesto D. Lampa on April 13, 1989.4 postponement.

Complainant stated in her Complaint that she did not sell her property to Krisbuilt Traders On July 4, 2001, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence,8 which was opposed by
Company, Ltd., and that she neither signed any deed of sale in its favor nor appeared before complainant. The Investigating Commissioner denied respondent's prayer for the outright
respondent to acknowledge the sale. She alleged that respondent manipulated the sale of her dismissal of the complaint, and directed respondent to present her evidence on October 24,
property to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. using her trusted employee, Estrella D. Kraus, as 2001.9
the instrument in the sale, and that her signature was forged, as she did not sign any deed
selling her property to anyone. The Register of Deeds of Marikina City was subpoenaed to testify and bring the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated November 11, 1986, which caused the cancellation of TCT No. 61244 in
In her Answer,5 respondent alleged that Estrella D. Kraus never worked in any capacity in her the name of complainant and the issuance of a new title to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.
law office, and that Estrella and her husband, Karl Kraus (Spouses Kraus), were her clients. However, the Register of Deeds failed to appear on March 1, 2002. During the hearing held on
Respondent denied that she suggested that complainant should apply for a loan from a bank to July 29, 2003, respondent's counsel presented a certification10 from Records Officer Ma.
construct townhouses. She said that it was the complainant, on the contrary, who requested her Corazon Gaspar of the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, which certification stated that a
(respondent) to look for somebody who could help her raise the money she needed to copy of the Deed of Sale executed by Anita C. Peña in favor of Krisbuilt Traders Company,
complete the amortization of her property, which was mortgaged with the GSIS and was about Ltd., covering a parcel of land in Marikina, could not be located from the general file of the
to be foreclosed. Respondent stated that she was the one who introduced complainant to the registry and that the same may be considered lost. Hearings continued until 2005. On February
Spouses Kraus when they were both in her office. In the course of their conversation, 17, 2005, respondent was directed by the Investigating Commissioner to formally offer her
complainant offered the property, subject matter of this case, to the Spouses Kraus. The evidence and to submit her memorandum.
Spouses Kraus were interested, and got the telephone number of complainant. Thereafter,
complainant told respondent that she accompanied the Spouses Kraus to the site of her Before the resolution of the case by the IBP, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss before the
property and the Office of the Register of Deeds. After about three weeks, the Spouses Kraus IBP on the ground that the criminal case of estafa filed against her before the RTC of Manila,
called up respondent to tell her that they had reached an agreement with complainant, and they Branch 36, which estafa case was anchored on the same facts as the administrative case, had
requested respondent to prepare the deed of sale in favor of their company, Krisbuilt Traders been dismissed in a Decision11 dated August 20, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 94-138567. The
Company, Ltd. Thereafter, complainant and the Spouses Kraus went to respondent's office RTC held that the case for estafa could not prosper against the accused Atty. Christina C.
where complainant signed the Deed of Sale after she received Sixty-Seven Thousand Pesos Paterno, respondent herein, for insufficiency of evidence to secure conviction beyond
(₱67,000.00) from the Spouses Kraus. Respondent alleged that complainant took hold of the reasonable doubt, considering the absence of the Deed of Sale and/or any competent proof that
Deed of Sale, as the understanding was that the complainant would, in the meantime, work for would show that Anita Peña's signature therein was forged and the transfer of the land was
the release of the mortgage, and, thereafter, she would deliver her certificate of title, together made through fraudulent documents.
with the Deed of Sale, to the Spouses Kraus who would then pay complainant the balance of
The issue resolved by the Investigating Commissioner was whether or not there was clear and affirmed that his participation in the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale was mere recording, but he
preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated the Canons of Professional later affirmed that he saw the parties sign the Deed of Absolute Sale.23
Responsibility by (a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Peña; (b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus
and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to enable the latter to register the subject property in his name; and Commissioner Sordan stated that the unbroken chain of circumstances, like respondent's
(c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale. testimony that she saw complainant sign the Deed of Sale before her is proof of respondent's
deception. Respondent's notarization of the disputed deed of sale showed her active role to
On January 6, 2009, Atty. Albert R. Sordan, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP, perpetuate a fraud to prejudice a party. Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed
submitted his Report and Recommendation finding that respondent betrayed the trust reposed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to her office by attesting that the alleged party,
upon her by complainant by executing a bogus deed of sale while she was entrusted with Anita Peña, appeared before her and signed the deed when in truth and in fact the said person
complainant's certificate of title, and that respondent also notarized the spurious deed of sale. did not participate in the execution thereof. Moreover, respondent should be faulted for having
Commissioner Sordan stated that there was no evidence showing that respondent actively failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the deed of sale in her notarial register.
conspired with any party or actively participated in the forgery of the signature of
complainant. Nevertheless, Commissioner Sordan stated that complainant's evidence supports According to Commissioner Sordan, these gross violations of the law made respondent liable
the conclusion that her signature on the said Deed of Sale dated November 11, 1986 was for violation of her oath as a lawyer and constituted transgressions of Section 20 (a),24 Rule
forged. 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 125 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Although no copy of the said Deed of Sale could be produced notwithstanding diligent search
in the National Archives and the Notarial Section of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Commissioner Sordan recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and
Manila, Commissioner Sordan stated that the interlocking testimonies of the complainant and her name stricken-off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately, and recommended that the
her witness, Maura Orosco, proved that the original copy of the owner's duplicate certificate of notarial commission of respondent, if still existing, be revoked, and that respondent be
title was delivered to respondent.12 Commissioner Sordan did not give credence to perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.
respondent's denial that complainant handed to her the owner's duplicate of TCT No. N-61244
in November 1986 at the GSIS, as Maura Orosco, respondent's former client who worked as
Records Processor at the GSIS, testified that she saw complainant give the said title to On August 28, 2010, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No. XIX-20-464,
respondent. adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
thus:
Commissioner Sordan gave credence to the testimony of complainant that she gave respondent
her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 61244 to enable respondent to use the same as RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
collateral in constructing a townhouse, and that the title was in the safekeeping of respondent APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
for seven years.13 Despite repeated demands by complainant, respondent refused to return above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and, finding the
it.14 Yet, respondent assured complainant that she was still the owner.15 Later, complainant recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
discovered that a new building was erected on her property in January 1994, eight years after and finding Respondent guilty of her oath as a lawyer, Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of
she gave the title to respondent. Respondent argued that it was unfathomable that after eight Court and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Christina C.
years, complainant never took any step to verify the status of her loan application nor visited Paterno is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name stricken off from the
her property, if it is untrue that she sold the said property. Complainant explained that Roll of Attorneys. Furthermore, respondent's notarial commission if still existing is Revoked
respondent kept on assuring her that the bank required the submission of her title in order to with Perpetual Disqualification from reappointment as a Notary Public.
process her loan application.16
The Court adopts the findings of the Board of Governors of the IBP insofar as respondent has
Commissioner Sordan stated that respondent enabled Estrella B. Kraus to sell complainant's violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law, and agrees with the
land to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.17 This was evidenced by Entry No. 150322 in TCT sanction imposed.
No. 61244 with respect to the sale of the property described therein to Krisbuilt Traders
Company, Ltd. for ₱200,000.00.18 Respondent alleged that complainant signed the Deed of The criminal case of estafa from which respondent was acquitted, as her guilt was not proven
Sale in her presence inside her office.19 However, respondent would neither directly confirm beyond reasonable doubt, is different from this administrative case, and each must be disposed
nor deny if, indeed, she notarized the instrument in her direct examination,20 but on cross- of according to the facts and the law applicable to each case.26 Section 5,27 in relation to
examination, she stated that she was not denying that she was the one who notarized the Deed Sections 128 and 2,29 Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, only
of Sale.21 Estrella Kraus' affidavit22 supported respondent's defense. substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
Respondent presented her former employee Basilio T. Depaudhon to prove the alleged signing evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.30
by complainant of the purported Deed of Absolute Sale, and the notarization by respondent of
the said Deed. However, Commissioner Sordan doubted the credibility of Depaudhon, as he
Freeman v. Reyes31 held that the dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude the not also be found in the National Archives per the certification42 of the Archives Division
continuance of a separate and independent action for administrative liability, as the weight of Chief Teresita R. Ignacio for Director Edgardo J. Celis. The failure of respondent to fulfill her
evidence necessary to establish the culpability is merely substantial evidence. An duty as notary public to submit her notarial register for the month of November 1986 and a
administrative case can proceed independently, even if there was a full-blown trial wherein, copy of the said Deed of Sale that was notarized by her on the same month is cause for
based on both prosecution and defense evidence, the trial court eventually rendered a revocation of her commission under Section 249 of the Notarial Law.43 Lawyers
judgment of acquittal, on the ground either that the prosecution failed to prove the commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their
respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or that no crime was committed.32 offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.44

The purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or
officers of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those who suspended for any deceit or dishonest act, thus:
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom
courts and clients may repose confidence.33 The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. – A member of
and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
convincing and satisfactory evidence.34 any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or
by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
In this case, Investigating Commissioner Sordan gave credence to complainant's testimony oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of
that she gave respondent her owner's copy of the certificate of title to her property as any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a
respondent would apply for a bank loan in complainant's behalf, using the subject property as party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
collateral. purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Complainant's testimony was corroborated by Maura Orosco, a former records processor in Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in possession of complainant's copy of
complainant's office at the GSIS and also a client of respondent, who stated that she saw the certificate of title (TCT No. N-61244) to the property in Marikina, and it was respondent
complainant give her title to respondent.35 Respondent admitted in her Answer36 that she who admittedly prepared the Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having executed or
executed the Deed of Sale per the request of the Spouses Kraus. The said Deed of Sale was signed, the important evidence of the alleged forgery of complainant's signature on the Deed
notarized by respondent as evidenced by Entry No. 15032237 in complainant's title, TCT No. of Sale and the validity of the sale is the Deed of Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of
N-61244. As the Deed of Sale could not be presented in evidence, through no fault of the Sale could not be produced by the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, as it could not be
complainant, nonetheless, the consequence thereof is failure of complainant to prove her located in the general files of the registry, and a certification was issued stating that the Deed
allegation that her signature therein was forged and that respondent defrauded complainant by of Sale may be considered lost.45 Moreover, respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court of
facilitating the sale of the property to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. without complainant's the RTC of Manila her Notarial Report for the month of November 1986,46 including the said
approval. However, complainant proved that respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court Deed of Sale, which was executed on November 11, 1986. Hence, Investigating
of the RTC of Manila, National Capital Region her Notarial Report for the month of Commissioner Sordan opined that it appears that efforts were exerted to get rid of the copies
November 1986, when the Deed of Sale was executed. of the said Deed of Sale to prevent complainant from getting hold of the document for the
purpose of handwriting verification from an expert to prove that her alleged signature on the
The pertinent provisions of the applicable Notarial Law found in Chapter 12, Book V, Volume Deed of Sale was forged. The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of
I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended, states that every notary public Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of
shall keep a notarial register,38 and he shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the Sale, which was notarized by her within that month, has far-reaching implications and grave
nature of each instrument executed, among others, and, when the instrument is a contract, he consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and
shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and he shall likewise enter in said showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity. During
records a brief description of the substance thereof.39 her testimony, it was observed by the Investigating Commissioner and reflected in the
transcript of records that respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny that she
notarized the said Deed of Sale.
A ground for revocation of a notary public's commission is failure of the notary to send the
copy of the entries to the proper clerk of the Court of First Instance (RTC) within the first ten
days of the month next following or the failure of the notary to forward his notarial register, For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. As
when filled, to the proper clerk of court.40 a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons:
In this case, the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila issued a Certification,41 dated February
22, 1994, stating that respondent was duly appointed as a Notary Public for the City of Manila CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
for the year 1986, and that respondent has not yet forwarded to the Clerk of Court's Office her respect for law and for legal processes.
Notarial Report for the month of November 1986, when the Deed of Sale was executed and
notarized by her. Hence, a copy of the Notarial Report/Record and the said Deed of Sale could Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at detainees with pending cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City
lessening confidence in the legal system. where she was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture.2 Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza
stated the following during her speech:
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. "O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay maging praktikal
sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong mga babae
the discredit of the legal profession.1âwphi1 na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon."3
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of
law, pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well as for violation of the Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases, all detainees should
Code of Professional Responsibility; and the notarial commission of Atty. Christina C. prepare and furnish her with their Sinumpaang Salaysay so that she may know the facts of
Paterno, if still existing, is perpetually REVOKED. their cases and their defenses and also to give her the necessary payment for their transcript of
stenographic notes.4
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondent's personal record. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Areola furthermore stated that when he helped his co-inmates in drafting their pleadings and
Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. filing motions before the RTC Branch 73, Antipolo City, Atty. Mendoza undermined his
capability, to wit:
The Bar Confidant is hereby DIRECTED to strike out the name of Christina C. Paterno from
the Roll of Attorneys. (1) Atty. Mendoza purportedly scolded detainee Seronda when she learned that the
latter was assisted by Areola in filing a Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Republic
Act No. 8942 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) in the latter’s criminal case for rape, which
SO ORDERED. was pending before the RTC, Branch 73, Antipolo City. She got angrier when
Seronda retorted that he allowed Areola to file the motion for him since there was
nobody to help him.

A.C. No. 10135               January 15, 2014 (2) Areola assisted Spouses Danilo and Elizabeth Perez in filing their Joint Motion
for Consolidation of Trial of Consolidated Offenses and Joint Motion to Plead
EDGARDO AREOLA, Complainant, Guilty to a Lesser Offense. The spouses were likewise scolded for relying on the
vs. Complainant and alleged that the respondent asked for ₱2,000.00 to represent them.
ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, Respondent.
(3) Areola helped another co-detainee, Mirador in filing an "Ex-parte Motion to
RESOLUTION Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense". When Atty. Mendoza learned of it, she allegedly
scolded Mirador and discredited Areola.5

REYES, J.:
In her unverified Answer6 dated January 5, 2007, Atty. Mendoza asseverated that the filing of
the administrative complaint against her is a harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had also
This refers to the administrative complaint1 filed by Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. filed several administrative cases against judges in the courts of Antipolo City including the
Muhammad Khadafy against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), from the Public jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where Areola was previously detained. These actuations show
Attorney s Office (PAO) for violation of her attorney s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or that Areola has a penchant for filing various charges against anybody who does not accede to
other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, his demand.7 Atty. Mendoza contended that Areola is not a lawyer but represented himself to
and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. his co-detainees as one.8 She alleged that the motions/pleadings prepared and/or filed by
Areola were not proper.
In the letter-complaint dated November 13, 2006 addressed to the Honorable Commissioners,
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Areola stated After both parties failed to appear in the Mandatory Conference set by the IBP on August 15,
that he was filing the complaint in behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner considered the non-appearance as a waiver on their
Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez and Elizabeth Perez. He alleged that on October 23, part. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, both parties were required to submit their
2006, during Prisoners Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all respective position papers.9
On December 29, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and matter how good he thinks he is, he is still not a lawyer. He is not authorized to give legal
Recommendation.10 The Investigating Commissioner stated that the Complainant is advice and file pleadings by himself before the courts. His familiarity with Philippine laws
knowledgeable in the field of law. While he may be of service to his fellow detainees, he must, should be put to good use by cooperating with the PAO instead of filing baseless complaints
however, be subservient to the skills and knowledge of a full fledged lawyer. He however against lawyers and other government authorities. It seems to the Court that Areola thinks of
found no convincing evidence to prove that Atty. Mendoza received money from Areola’s co- himself as more intelligent and better than Atty. Mendoza, based on his criticisms against her.
detainees as alleged. The charges against Atty. Mendoza were also uncorroborated, viz: In his Reply19, he made fun of her grammatical errors and tagged her as using carabao
english20. He also called the PAO as "Pa-Amin Office"21 which seriously undermines the
There is no convincing evidence that will prove that the respondent received money from the reputation of the PAO. While Areola may have been frustrated with the way the PAO is
inmates since the charges are uncorroborated. In fact, the complainant is not the proper party managing the significant number of cases it deals with, all the more should he exert efforts to
to file the instant case since he was not directly affected or injured by the act/s being utilize his knowledge to work with the PAO instead of maligning it.
complained of. No single affidavits of the affected persons were attached to prove the said
charges. Hence, it is simply hearsay in nature.11 Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and
plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted. This admission corresponds to
Nonetheless, Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer that she advised her clients and their one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that she told her clients " Iyak-iyakan lang
relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg and cry" so that their motions would be ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon." Atty. Mendoza made
granted and their cases against them would be dismissed. To the Investigating Commissioner, it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging
this is highly unethical and improper as the act of Atty. Mendoza degrades the image of and and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.
lessens the confidence of the public in the judiciary.12 The Investigating Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Mendoza be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two As such, the Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made
(2) months.13 irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or
In a Notice of Resolution14 dated November 19, 2011, the Board of Governors resolved to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system."
adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Rule 15.07 states that "a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness."
Atty. Mendoza sought to reconsider the Resolution15 dated November 19, 2011 but the IBP
Board of Governors denied her motion in its Resolution16 dated May 10, 2013. The Resolution Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal
of the IBP Board of Governors was transmitted to the Court for final action pursuant to Rule system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or
139-B, Section 12, Paragraph b17 of the Revised Rules of Court. factors22 according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled for.

The Court’s Ruling It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice.1âwphi1 To that end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable,
After a judicious examination of the records, the Court finds that the instant Complaint against fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his
Atty. Mendoza profoundly lacks evidence to support the allegations contained therein. All client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.23
Areola has are empty assertions against Atty. Mendoza that she demanded money from his co-
detainees.
In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2) months as
excessive and not commensurate to Atty. Mendoza’s infraction. Disbarment and suspension of
The Court agrees with the IBP that Areola is not the proper party to file the Complaint against a lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great
Atty. Mendoza. He is not even a client of Atty. Mendoza. He claims that he filed the caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court
Complaint on behalf of his co-detainees Seronda, Arca, Mirador and Spouses Perez, but it is and a member of the bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.24 The Court
apparent that no document was submitted which would show that they authorized Areola to notes that when Atty. Mendoza made the remark "Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at
file a Complaint. They did not sign the Complaint he prepared. No affidavit was even palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon", she was not compelled by bad faith or malice.
executed by the said co-detainees to substantiate the matters Areola raised. Consequently, the While her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is not disparaging and
Court rejects Areola’s statements, especially as regards Atty. Mendoza’s alleged demands of reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary.
money.
In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in
The Court agrees with the observations of the Investigating Commissioner that Areola the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the
initiated this complaint when he felt insulted because Atty. Mendoza refused to acknowledge respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family
the pleadings and motions he prepared for his co-detainees who are PAO clients of Atty. circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among
Mendoza.18 It appears that Areola is quite knowledgeable with Philippine laws. However, no other things, have had varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable
penalty.25 The Court takes note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-motive in the present case and Teresita alleges that in June 2006, Atty. De Vera obtained another loan from Teresita’s sister
her being a PAO lawyer as her main source of livelihood.26 Furthermore, the complaint filed in the amount of 100,000.00. Teresita guaranteed the loan. Atty. De Vera issued IBank Check
by Areola is clearly baseless and the only reason why this was ever given consideration was No. 317689 post-dated July 14, 2006 for 100,000.00 to Teresita. Teresita claimed that she paid
due to Atty. Mendoza’s own admission. For these reasons, the Court deems it just to modify her sister the amount borrowed by Atty. De Vera.8
and reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.
Upon maturity of the checks, Teresita presented the checks for payment. However, the checks
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of "bounced" for being drawn against insufficient funds. Teresita attempted to encash the checks
giving improper advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of for a second time. However, the checks were dishonored because the account was closed.9
Professional Responsibility and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with
the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more Teresita demanded payment from Atty. De Vera. However, she failed to settle her obligations,
severely. prompting Teresita to file complaints against Atty. De Vera for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.10
SO ORDERED.
The Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office issued the Resolution dated March 4, 2008 finding
probable cause for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code. On the same day, an Information for estafa under Article 315, paragraph
A.C. No. 8330 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the trial court.11
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, Complainant,
vs. In her administrative complaint, Teresita prays that Atty. De Vera be disbarred or suspended
ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, Respondent. for violation of her oath under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.12

RESOLUTION On July 29, 2009, this court required Atty. De Vera to comment on the Complaint.13

LEONEN, J.: Atty. De Vera filed her Answer14 dated June 24, 2010. She presented her version of the facts.

For resolution is an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by According to Atty. De Vera, in February 2006, Teresita awarded a Site Acquisition and
complainant Teresita B. Enriquez against Atty. Trina De Vera. We resolve whether Atty. Permitting Project to Atty. De Vera’s group. The project involved twenty-nine (29) Globe
Trina De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable for Telecom sites across Northern and Southern Luzon.15
the issuance and dishonor of several post-dated checks.
Atty. De Vera alleges that Teresita could not pay the required 15% downpayment per site.
Teresita B. Enriquez (Teresita) filed her Complaint-Affidavit1 on June 26, 2009 before this Thus, they agreed that Atty. De Vera would advance the costs for mobilization and survey,
court. The Complaint prayed for Atty. Trina De Vera's (Atty. De Vera) disbarment or while Teresita would cover the costs for application of building permits. Teresita, thus, owed
suspension in relation to the latter's issuance of worthless checks and non-payment of a loan.2 her 195,000.00 per site.16

According to Teresita, she is a businesswoman involved in building cell site towers. She is Teresita had not paid Atty. De Vera the downpayment by March 2006.17 At that time, Teresita
acquainted with Atty. De Vera through the business by subcontracting the cell site acquisition had to deliver at least five (5) cell sites to Globe Telecom.18 However, Teresita did not have
to Atty. De Vera.3 the funds required for the application of building permits that costs around 100,000.00 for
each cell site.19
Sometime in April 2006, Atty. De Vera borrowed 500,000.00 from Teresita with interest of
20,000.00 per month until fully paid.4 However, Teresita did not have the full amount. Atty. Teresita was constrained to borrow 500,000.00 from Mary Jane. Subsequently, Teresita
De Vera persuaded her to borrow the amount from a common friend, Mary Jane D. Luzon approached Atty. De Vera and asked that the latter lend Teresita checks to guaranty the loan.
(Mary Jane), by mortgaging her property located in Lucena City.5 Atty. De Vera issued The main reason Teresita gave was that she had been frequently arguing with her husband
IBank6 Check No. 310571 post-dated July 31, 2006 for 500,000.00. Atty. De Vera also issued regarding the loan.20
at least two more checks to cover the interest agreed upon.7
Atty. De Vera denies the 100,000.00 loan from Teresita’s sister.21 She only lent Teresita
another check as "additional guaranty for the five sites[.]"22
Atty. De Vera argues that the checks were not drawn, issued, and delivered to Teresita for The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing . . .
value. The checks were not meant to be deposited.23 worthless check[s]; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The
law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to
Furthermore, Atty. De Vera claims that the present administrative case is baseless. She points prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. . . . A
out that the proceedings before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office were under check issued as an evidence of debt — though not intended to be presented for payment — has
reinvestigation since she did not have the opportunity to answer the criminal complaint.24 the same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.

Moreover, "nowhere in both the affidavit-complaint for Estafa/BP 22 and the administrative ....
complaint was there any proof that . . . [Atty. De Vera] had in any manner breached her oath
as a lawyer [or] abused her position against the interests of the complainant."25 As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B.P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks
in violation of the provisions of the law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct.
Atty. De Vera alleges that she was the one who was abused.26 In addition, "[a]ll the bare
allegations that [Atty. De Vera] was the one who enticed [Teresita] to mortgage her property . . . [A] lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his profession,
and that the checks issued by [Atty. De Vera] will be honored upon maturity do not constitute but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity[.]33 (Citation omitted)
deceitful conduct on the part of [Atty. De Vera]."27
In issuing the worthless checks, Atty. De Vera did not only violate the law, but she also broke
On August 25, 2010, this court noted Atty. De Vera’s Answer and referred the case to the her oath as a lawyer and transgressed the Canons in the Code of Professional
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for "investigation, report and recommendation or decision Responsibility.34 The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. De Vera violated the
within ninety (90) days from receipt of [the] records[.]"28 following provisions:

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines scheduled Cannon [sic] 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
mandatory conferences where the parties defined the issues, stipulated on facts, and marked promote respect for the law and legal processes.
exhibits.29 Upon the termination of the mandatory conferences, the parties were "directed to
submit their respective verified position papers within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
of the Order."30
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
Both parties failed to file their position papers.31 and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
the Philippines found Atty. De Vera administratively liable for serious misconduct and practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
recommended the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law.32 The the discredit of the legal profession.35
Investigating Commissioner ruled:
The dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and
Respondent’s assertion that the checks she issued to complainant were not security for the Recommendation36 reads:
loans she obtained but mere guaranty checks and not for deposit deserves no credence; it is
contrary to the ordinary experience.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and it is
recommended that she be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the practice of law.37
....
In the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-61238 dated May 11, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the
. . . [T]he pieces of evidenc[e] on reco[r]d substantially shows [sic] that indeed respondent Philippines Board of Governors resolved to adopt the Investigating Commissioner’s
incurred monetary obligations from complainant, and she issued postdated checks to the latter recommendation:
as security for the payment of the loans.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
Assuming . . . that respondent’s version of facts were [sic] true, she is still guilty of serious APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the
misconduct. above- entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules
and considering that Respondent violated the B.P. 22 by issuing a worthless check, the
Attorney’s Oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional penalized by B.P. Blg. 22. We consider that issuance of checks in violation of the provisions
Responsibility, Atty. Trina De Vera is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes serious misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar.46 (Emphasis
(1) year.39 supplied, citation omitted)

(Emphasis in the original) Misconduct involves "wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment";47 it is serious or
gross when it is flagrant.48
Teresita filed the Partial Motion for Reconsideration40 dated September 17, 2013 of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors’ Resolution. Atty. De Vera filed the We recently reiterated the purpose and nature of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in relation to an
Motion for Reconsideration41 dated September 21, 2013. administrative case against a member of the bar:

In the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-24142 dated May 3, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking
Philippines Board of Governors denied the parties’ respective motions: system and the legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined
and punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 . . . is the act of making and issuing a worthless
RESOLVED to DENY respective Motions for Reconsideration of Complainant and check, or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in
Respondent, there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and the circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and
resolution subject of the motion, they being a mere reiteration of the matters which had pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the
already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Moreover, respondent’s Motion for practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.
Reconsideration was filed out of time pursuant to his Motion for Extension of Time which is a
prohibited pleading under Rule 139-B of the Rules and resorted to by lawyers at times to delay ....
proceeding. Thus, Resolution No. XX- 2013-612 dated May 11, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED.43
Being a lawyer, [respondent] was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas
(Emphasis in the original) Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was
penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein
The main issue is whether Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the
administratively liable for the issuance and dishonor of worthless checks in violation of the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. his Lawyer’s Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the
laws.49 (Citations omitted)
After considering the parties’ arguments and the records of this case, we resolve to adopt and
approve the recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in
a public or private capacity.50 The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Atty. De Vera tries to free herself from liability by arguing that she did not incur the loans
alleged by Teresita, and the checks were issued merely as a guaranty and not as payment for CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
the loan. She also raises the prematurity of the administrative complaint in view of the THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
pendency of the criminal proceedings considering that "the allegations of deceitful conduct
[are] intimately intertwined with the criminal acts complained of."44 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

This is not a case of first impression. This court has ruled that the lawyer’s act of issuing ....
worthless checks, punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutes serious misconduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
In De Jesus v. Collado,45 this court found respondent lawyer guilty of serious misconduct for THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
issuing post-dated checks that were dishonored upon presentment for payment: LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has as yet been obtained against
respondent Collado. We do not, however, believe that conviction of the criminal charges ....
raised against her is essential, so far as either the administrative or civil service case or the
disbarment charge against her is concerned. Since she had admitted issuing the checks when
she did not have enough money in her bank account to cover the total amount thereof, it
cannot be gainsaid that the acts with which she was charged would constitute a crime
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to PERALTA,** J.:
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession. This is a Petition for Disbarment which petitioners Manuel Enrique L. Zalamea and Manuel
Jose L. Zalamea filed against their lawyer, Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr., for acquiring their
The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. De Vera incurred monetary obligations from property by virtue of their lawyer-client relationship, in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the
Teresita. Atty. De Vera admitted issuing the checks to Teresita. She refused to answer for her Code of Professional Responsibility.
liabilities by denying the existence of the loan and claiming that the checks were mere "show
checks."51 However, she failed to present evidence to prove those allegations. The following are the factual antecedents of the case:

The Decision52 wherein the trial court found Teresita civilly liable to Mary Jane for chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn 2000, petitioners Manuel Enrique Zalamea and Manuel Jose
540,000.00,53 and on which Atty. De Vera relies upon, is not sufficient evidence to hold that Zalamea (the Zalamea brothers) sought respondent Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr.'s advice
there was no separate transaction between Teresita and Atty. De Vera. The Decision involved on the properties of their ailing mother, Merlinda L. Zalamea, who had a property situated at
the post-dated checks issued by Teresita to Mary Jane only.54 Mary Jane merely claimed that Scout Limbaga, Quezon City under her name. When Merlinda passed away, De Guzman then
she had no personal knowledge of any transaction between Teresita and Atty. De Vera.55 prepared a letter for a possible tax-free transfer of the Scout Limbaga property to the Merlinda
Holding Corporation which was sought to be incorporated to handle Merlinda's estate, and
notarized the incorporation papers of said corporation.
The Investigating Commissioner correctly pointed out that Atty. De Vera's allegation of
"lending" her checks to Teresita is contrary to ordinary human experience. As a lawyer, Atty. In September 2001, the Zalameas put up EMZEE FOODS INC., (EMZEE) a corporation
De Vera is presumed to know the consequences of her acts. She issued several post-dated engaged in lechon business, with De Guzman providing the capital and operational funds.
checks for value that were dishonored upon presentation for payment. Sometime in 2002, Manuel Enrique informed De Guzman about the property located at
Speaker Perez St. (Speaker Perez property) which was then under the name of Elarfoods, Inc.
Membership in the bar requires a high degree of fidelity to the laws whether in a private or (Elarfoods), a corporation owned and run by the Zalamea brothers' aunts and uncles. Since
professional capacity. "Any transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish his said property had been mortgaged to Banco de Oro (BDO), the bank foreclosed it when
reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the public's faith in the Legal Profession as a Elarfoods failed to pay the loan. Elarfoods likewise failed to redeem the property, resulting in
whole."56 A lawyer "may be removed or otherwise disciplined 'not only for malpractice and the consolidation of the ownership over the property in BDO's name.
dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties, which showed him to be unfit for the Later, Manuel Enrique approached De Guzman and convinced him to help in the reacquisition
of the Speaker Perez property from BDO. De Guzman thus negotiated with BDO and was able
office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer to him."'571âwphi1 to secure a deal over the property for P20 Million. The bank required 10% downpayment of
the total price or P2 Million, to be paid in thirty-six (36) monthly installments, without
interest. Due to lack of funds on Manuel Enrique's part, De Guzman's wife, Angel, agreed to
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Trina De Vera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for shoulder the P2 Million downpayment in order not to lose the good opportunity, but under the
one (1) year. Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in Atty. De Vera's personal record with condition that the Speaker Perez property would later be transferred in the name of a new
the Office of the Bar Confidant, and a copy be served to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines corporation they had agreed to form, the EMZALDEK Venture Corporation, a combination of
and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land. the names EMZEE Foods, Zalamea, and Dek de Guzman. By this time, EMZEE had also
relocated to Speaker Perez.
SO ORDERED.
Subsequently, Angel was forced to pay the monthly installments and the additional 20%
required for EMZEE to be able to transfer its office to the Speaker Perez property, since
Manuel Enrique still could not produce sufficient funds and EMZEE continued to incur losses.
All in all, Angel paid P13,082,500.00.
A.C. No. 7387, November 07, 2016
Not long after, the relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and the Spouses De Guzman
MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL JOSE L. turned sour. The Spouses De Guzman wanted reimbursement of the amounts which they had
ZALAMEA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND PERLAS DE advanced for the corporation, while the Zalamea brothers claimed sole ownership over the
GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA, QUIZON-VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA Speaker Perez property. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for
LAW FIRM, Respondents. allegedly buying a client's property which was subject of litigation.

After a careful review and evaluation of the case, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
DECISION
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint against
De Guzman for lack of merit on October 12, 2011.1 On December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of
Governors passed a Resolution2 adopting and approving the recommended dismissal of the Zalameas claim that De Guzman, as their counsel, could not acquire the property, either
complaint, thus: personally or through his wife, without violating his ethical duties. De Guzman therefore has
breached the same when his wife purchased the subject property.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the However, the prohibition which the Zalameas invoke does not apply where the property
Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as purchased was not involved in litigation. De Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's
Annex "A," and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the properties or interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
applicable laws and rules, and considering that the complaint is without merit, the same is profession. There exists not even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever been
hereby DISMISSED. involved in any litigation in which De Guzman took part by virtue of his profession. True,
they had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle their
The Court's Ruling mother's estate, which likewise did not involve the contested property. Neither was it shown
that De Guzman's law firm had taken part in any litigation involving the Speaker Perez
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and recommendations of the IBP. property.

An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an The prohibition which rests on considerations of public policy and interests is intended to
attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27,3 Rule 138 curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his fiduciary and
of the Rules of Court.4chanrobleslaw confidential relationship with him. De Guzman could not have possibly exerted such undue
influence, as a lawyer, upon the Zalameas, as his clients. In fact, it was Manuel Enrique who
Under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited to acquire by purchase, even at a approached the Spouses De Guzman and asked them if they would be willing to become
public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, their client's business partners in a lechon business. It was also Manuel Enrique who turned to De Guzman
property and rights in litigation, hence:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary for help in order to reacquire the already foreclosed Speaker Perez property. They had agreed
ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial that De Guzman would simply pay the required downpayment to BDO and EMZEE would
auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary pay the remaining balance in installment. And when EMZEE continued suffering losses,
xxxx Angel took care of the monthly amortizations so as not to lose the property.

5. Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other Clearly, the relationship between the Spouses De Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is actually
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in one of business partners rather than that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition
litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory of the Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal, not by reason of a
they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by lawyer-client relationship, for Which he could not be penalized by the Court. De Guzman and
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be his wife are very well allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and their conduct in this
the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. regard was not borne out to have been attended by any undue influence, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
6. Any others specially disqualified by law.
Indeed, the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach of WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court DISMISSES the Petition for
professional ethics and constitutes malpractice. The persons mentioned in Article 1491 are Disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr. for utter lack of merit.
prohibited from purchasing said property because of an existing trust relationship. A lawyer is
disqualified from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation because of his SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
fiduciary relationship with such property and rights, as well as with the client. The very first
Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility5 provides that "a lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process." Canon A.C. No. 11078
17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him, while Canon 16 provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust
VERLITA V. MERCULLO and RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants,
all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession." Further, Section 3,
vs.
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer to take an oath to obey the laws
ATTY. MARIE FRANCESE RAMON, Respondent.
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities. And for any violation of this
oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by the Court. All of these underscore the role of
the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of any provision of law by a DECISION
lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act which the Court will never
countenance.6chanrobleslaw BERSAMIN, J.:

Here, the accusation against De Guzman stemmed from his wife's purchase of the Speaker
Perez property from BDO when Manuel Enrique did not have the means to buy it. The
This case concerns the complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon for Please assist Ms. Carmelita Vedano, through her Attorney-in-Fact in redeeming the property
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's covered by EJF No. 7484-2013. Please provide the necessary computation as to the full
Oath for deceiving the complainants in order to obtain the substantial amount of P350,000.00 redemption amount in order for Ms. Vedano to redeem the same.
on the pretext of having the foreclosed asset of the latter's mother redeemed.
Thank you.
Antecedents
Truly yours,
In the period from 2002 to 2011, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
(NHMFC) sent several demand letters to Carmelita T. Vedaño1 regarding her unpaid (Sgd.) rances E. Ramon
obligations secured by the mortgage covering her residential property in Novaliches, Caloocan
City.2 To avoid the foreclosure of the mortgage, Carmelita authorized her children, Verlita
Mercullo and Raymond Vedaño (complainants herein), to inquire from the NHMFC about the Verlita and Raymond went to the NHMFC on September 9, 2013 to follow up on the
status of the obligations. Verlita and Raymond learned that their mother's arrears had redemption, but discovered that the respondent had already ceased to be connected with the
amounted to P350,000.00, and that the matter of the mortgage was under the charge of NHMFC. On September 20, 2013, they met with her at Branch 145 of the Regional Trial
respondent Atty. Ramon, but who was not around at that time. Court in Makati City where she was attending a hearing. She informed them that the
redemption was under process, and that the certificate of redemption would be issued in two to
three weeks time.9
On June 20, 2012, Carmelita received a letter from the sheriff of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Caloocan City, stating that her property would be put up for auction in July 2013.
Verlita and Raymond thus went to the NHMFC to see the respondent, who advised them about After communicating through text messages with the respondent, Verlita and Raymond finally
their right to redeem the property within one year from the foreclosure.3 went to see the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City On November 27,
2013 to inquire on the status of the redemption. There, they discovered that the respondent had
not deposited the redemption price and had not filed the letter of intent for redeeming the
In August 2013, Verlita and Raymond called up the respondent, and expressed their intention property.10
to redeem the property by paying the redemption price. The latter agreed and scheduled an
appointment with them on August 30,2013.
On December 5, 2013, Verlita and Raymond again went to Branch 145 of the Regional Trial
Court in Makati City where the respondent had a hearing, and handed to her their demand
On August 30, 2013, the respondent arrived at the designated meeting place at around 1:30 letter requiring her to return the amount she had received for the redemption.11 She
p.m., carrying the folder that Verlita and Raymond had seen at the NHFMC when they acknowledged the letter and promised to return the money on December 16, 2013 by
inquired on the status of their mother's property. After the respondent had oriented them on the depositing the amount in Verlita's bank account. However, she did not fulfill her promise and
procedure for redemption, the complainants handed P350,000.00 to the respondent, who did not show up for her subsequent scheduled hearings in Branch 145.12
signed an acknowledgment receipt.4 The respondent issued two acknowledgment receipts for
the redemption price and for litigation expenses,5 presenting to the complainants her NHMFC
identification card. Before leaving them, she promised to inform them as soon as the With their attempts to reach the respondent being in vain, V erlita and Raymond brought their
documents for redemption were ready for their mother's signature.6 disbarment complaint in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).1âwphi1

On September 4, 2013, the respondent met with Verlita and handed a letter7 that she had Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
signed, along with the special power of attorney (SPA) for Carmelita's signature.8 The letter
reads: The respondent did not submit her answer when required to do so. She also did not attend the
mandatory conference set by the IBP despite notice. Hence, the investigation proceeded ex
Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff parte.13
Regional Trial Court
Caloocan City IBP Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano submitted his Report and Recommendation,14 whereby
he found the respondent to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Re: Redemption of the property covered by EJF No. 7484-2013 Responsibility for engaging in deceitful conduct, and recommended her suspension from the
practice of law for two years, and her return to the complainants of P350,000.00. with legal
interest from December 2, 2013.
Dear Atty. Dabalos,
The IBP Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Adriano's recommendation as stated in
its Resolution No. XXI-2014-929,15 viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, the Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the unlawful act or omission of the respondent
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, within the coverage of Rule 1. 01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.20The Code
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully exacted from her not only a firm respect for the law and legal processes but also the utmost
supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and for violation of Rule 1.01 of the degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted by them
Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon is hereby SUSPENDED pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.21
from the practice of law for two (2) years and Ordered to Return the amount of Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand (P350,000.00) Pesos to Complainant. Yet another dereliction of the respondent was her wanton disregard of the several notices sent
to her by the IBP in this case. Such disregard could only be wrong because it reflected her
Ruling of the Court undisguised contempt of the proceedings of the IBP, a body that the Court has invested with
the authority to investigate the disbarment complaint against her. She thus exhibited her
The Court declares the respondent guilty of dishonesty and deceit. irresponsibility as well as her utter disrespect for the Court and the rest of the Judiciary. It
cannot be understated that a lawyer in her shoes should comply with the orders of the Court
and of the Court's duly constituted authorities, like the IBP, the office that the Court has
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer. Any violation of particularly tasked to carry out the specific function of investigating attorney misconduct.22
the oath may be punished with either disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law, or
other commensurate disciplinary action.16 Every lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity
and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his admission to the Bar, but are The respondent deserves severe chastisement and appropriate sanctions. In this regard, the IBP
also essential for his continued membership in the Law Profession.17 Any conduct unbecoming Board of Governors recommended her suspension for two years from the practice of law, and
of a lawyer constitutes a violation of his oath. her return of the amount of P350,000.00 to the complainants. The recommended penalty is not
commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct committed. She merited a heavier sanction of
suspension from the practice of law for five years. Her professional misconduct warranted a
The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by receiving money from the longer suspension from the practice of law because she had caused material prejudice to the
complainants after having made them believe that she could assist them in ensuring the clients' interest.23 She should somehow be taught to be more ethical and professional in dealing
redemption in their mother's behalf. She was convincing about her ability to work on the with trusting clients like the complainants and their mother, who were innocently too willing
redemption because she had worked in the NHFMC. She did not inform them soon enough, to repose their utmost trust in her abilities as a lawyer and in her trustworthiness as a legal
however, that she had meanwhile ceased to be connected with the agency. It was her duty to professional. In this connection, we state that the usual mitigation of the recommended penalty
have so informed them. She further misled them about her ability to realize the redemption by by virtue of the misconduct being her first offense cannot be carried out in her favor
falsely informing them about having started the redemption process. She concealed from them considering that she had disregarded the several notices sent to her by the IBP in this case. As
the real story that she had not even initiated the redemption proceedings that she had assured to the return of the P350,000.00 to the complainant, requiring her to restitute with legal
them she would do. Everything she did was dishonest and deceitful in order to have them part interest is only fair and just because she did not comply in the least with her ethical
with the substantial sum of P350,000.00. She took advantage of the complainants who had undertaking to work on the redemption of the property of the mother of the complainants. In
reposed their full trust and confidence in her ability to perform the task by virtue of her being a addition, she is sternly warned against a similar infraction in the future; otherwise, the Court
lawyer. Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably eroded public trust in the Legal will have her suffer a more severe penalty.
Profession.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E.
As a lawyer, the respondent was proscribed from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or RAMON guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
deceitful conduct in her dealings with others, especially clients whom she should serve with Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath; SUSPENDS HER FROM THE PRACTICE OF
competence and diligence.18 Her duty required her to maintain fealty to them, binding her not LAW FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with
to neglect the legal matter entrusted to her. Thus, her neglect in connection therewith rendered the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more
her liable.19 Moreover, the unfulfilled promise of returning the money and her refusal to severely; ORDERS her to return to the complainants the sum of P350,000.00 within 30 days
communicate with the complainants on the matter of her engagement aggravated the neglect from notice, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision
and dishonesty attending her dealings with the complainants. until full payment; and DIRECTS her to promptly submit to this Court written proof of her
compliance within the same period of 30 days from notice of this decision.
The respondent's conduct patently breached Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon's personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts
respect for law and for legal processes.1âwphi1 throughout the country for their information and guidance.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. SO ORDERED.