Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
SALLY V. BELLOSILLO,
Petitioner,
- versus -
THE
BOARD
OF
GOVERNORS
OF
THE
INTEGRATED
BAR
OF
THEPHILIPPINES and
ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR.,
Respondents.
Promulgated:
March 31, 2006
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
GARCIA, J.:
Under consideration is this petition for certiorari assailing the
Resolution,[1] dated March 30, 1996, of the respondent Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP Board of
Governors),
adopting
Recommendation[2] of
and
the
approving
Investigating
the
Report
Commissioner
and
in
thereto,
respondent
denied
all
the
charges
and
for
failure
to
show
a prima
facie case
against
From
such
denial,
respondent
then
filed
petition
for
of
for
petition
preliminary
Report
and
Recommendation[11] of
the
Investigating
be to unnecessarily prolong his agony, unfairly expose his name and reputation as
a lawyer to erroneous conclusions and unfavorable innuendos, the charges that he
was unfaithful, even as they were unfounded, being unfortunately not without
their adverse effects (Aragon vs. Matol, 30 SCRA 1 (1969). For as the Supreme
Court ruled:
There is this additional point to consider. As Cardozo aptly
observed: ~Reputation (in the legal profession) is a plant of tender
growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored. This Court,
certainly is not averse to having such risk minimized. Where, as in
this case, the good name of counsel was traduced by an accusation
made in reckless disregard of the truth, an action prompted by
based ingratitude, the severest censure is called for.
Certainly, this is not easy to say that if a case were presented
showing nonfeasance or malfeasance on the part of a lawyer,
appropriate disciplinary action would not be taken.This is not such
a case however. Respondent, as has been so clearly shown, was in
no wise culpable; there is no occasion for the corrective power of
this Court coming into play. (Albano v. Coloma, 21 SCRA 411,
420 [1967]).
WHEREFORE, finding no prima facie case to justify a full dress hearing, it is
hereby recommended that the present administrative case be dismissed.
In its Resolution[12] of January 15, 1997, the Court noted the herein
assailed Resolution dated March 30, 1996 of the IBP Board of
Governors.
On December 3, 1996, the petitioner went to this Court by
way of this petition for certiorari challenging the March 30, 1996
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Petitioner imputes grave
abuse of discretion on the part of IBP Board of Governors for
allegedly
not
ruling
on
her
several
charges
against
the
Investigating
Commissioner
and
the
respondent
are
both
rejected
this
erroneous
perception
when,
resolving
petitioners letter for this Court to direct any member of the U.P.
Sigma Rho Fraternity to desist from participating in the IBP
proceedings on the case against respondent, the Court stated:
Membership in a college fraternity, by itself, does not constitute a ground to
disqualify an investigator, prosecutor or judge from acting on the case of a
respondent who happens to be a member of the same fraternity. A trial Judge,
appellate Justice, or member of this Court who is or was a member of a college
fraternity, a university alumni association, a socio-civic association like Jaycees or
Rotary, a religion oriented organization like Knights of Columbus or Methodist
Men, and various other fraternal organizations is not expected to automatically
inhibit himself or herself from acting whenever a case involving a member of his
or her group happens to come before him or her for action.
A member in good standing of any reputable organization is expected all the more
to maintain the highest standards of probity, integrity, and honor and to faithfully
comply with the ethics of the legal profession.
would
be
sufficient
to
counterbalance
the
general
8
48
175
227
21
8
Value
P 15,206.00
631,860.50
2,532,277.00
10,732,495.00
1,846,000.00
310,500.00
P16,068,338.50
RESPONDENT
Number
10
6
18
24
31
1
Value
P 1,155,000.00
760,000.00
795,000.00
1,453,000.00
3,761,500.00
9,850,000.00
230,000.00
P 18,004,500.00
the
alleged
appropriation
of
the
money
by
the
The complaint also states that these borrowings accumulated over a period of
years from 1981 and that 1981 marked the start of the period when he stopped
being very proper in his dealings with us concerning money matters. (Complaint,
p. 4). If it were so, we find difficult to understand why she continued, as she
claims, lending him cash and checks in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985.She further
claims in one breath that [respondents] cash borrowings amounted to not less
than P50,000 each time, and because of her trust on him, she did not ask him to
issue receipts. Yet in another breath, she claims to have check receipts evidencing
alleged gifts of lechon to [respondent] with value less than a thousand pesos
(Annex A-1, Complaint). Why she did not ask for receipts of [respondents] cash
borrowing amounting, as she claims, from P50,000.00 and to as high
as P500,000.00 cash is something we could not comprehend.
The incredible aspect of the charge is further shown by her assertion that at one
instance, respondent borrowed cash from her in the amount of half a million
pesos, and that her maid or yayadelivered to him said cash of P500,000.00. We
find it contrary to normal behavior for the complainant to entrust to her yaya that
amount of cash for delivery to the respondent.[21] (Words in brackets supplied).
that
expensive
attach
that
she
that
is
The Court
reiterates
that
the
power
only
to
in
disbar
a
clear
must
be
case
of
of
the
Bar, the
Court
has
consistently
held
that
clear
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
the Court declared that in the absence of any showing that the
the
show
that
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVALGUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, p. 50.
Id. at 51-82.
[3]
Record, Volume 1, pp. 1-23.
[4]
Record, Volume II-B, pp. 381-428.
[5]
Record, Volume II-B, pp. 513-564.
[6]
Record, Volume II-B, pp. 573-589.
[7]
Record, Volume II-B, pp. 718-728.
[8]
Record, Volume II-B, pp. 769-771.
[9]
Record, Volume II-B, p. 769.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 80-82.
[11]
Id. at 51-82.
[12]
Record, Volume I, p. 245.
[13]
Rollo, p. 129.
[14]
Record, Volume II, pp. 2-3.
[15]
Banco Filipino and Mortgage and Savings Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132703, June 23, 2000, 334
SCRA 305.
[16]
Record, Volume II-B, pp. 769-771.
[17]
Bautista vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137, September 23, 1985, 138 SCRA 592.
[18]
Rollo, pp. 66-68.
[19]
Id. at 75-76.
[20]
Adm. Case No. 5280, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 422, 430.
[21]
Rollo, pp. 63-64.
[22]
Petitioners Complaint, Record, Volume I, pp. 5-6.
[23]
Dante vs. Dante, A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 582.
[24]
Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang vs. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, Adm. Case No. 6490, September 29, 2004, 439
SCRA 307.
[25]
Estrella Real Estate Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128862, September 30, 1999, 315 SCRA 650.
[26]
Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr. vs. Atty. Isidro C. Ilao, A.C No. 6086, January 26, 2005, 449 SCRA 269.
[2]
SECOND DIVISION
SPOUSES
WILFREDO
BOYBOY
and
BOYBOY, petitioners, vs.ATTY.
VICTORIANO
YABUT, JR., respondent.
LYDIA
R.
DECISION
Ei incumbit probotio qui dicit, non qui negat.
He who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This administrative case against Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr., stemmed from a
complaint filed by spouses Wilfredo Boyboy and Lydia Boyboy accusing him of
blackmail and extortion, and seeking his disbarment from the practice of law.
Complainant-spouses alleged that sometime in November 1999 respondent called
complainant Dr. Lydia Boyboy at her clinic in Angeles City threatening to charge her with
estafa before the NBI and cause the revocation of her physicians license unless
complainant paid him P300,000.00 informing her at the same time that he was in
possession of incriminatory evidence against her; on 7 December 1999 respondent
went to the clinic of Dr. Boyboy and personally served on her a subpoena from the NBI
requiring complainants to appear in the investigation of the case for estafa through
falsification of public documents which respondent filed against the complainants; the
following day, complainant Wilfredo Boyboy visited respondent at his law office to
discuss the case; respondent intimidated to Wilfredo Boyboy that he had already
persuaded Atty. Cris Balancio, NBI Director for Region III, to dismiss the case for a
consideration ofP400,000.00.
Complainants further averred that, appalled by the increased demand, they
arranged a meeting with the NBI Director to inquire about the demand for P400,000.00,
and Atty. Balancio denied having made such a demand and reacted adversely to the
name-dropping of respondent; that Atty. Balancio recommended an entrapment
operation against respondent but, for lack of funds, the planned entrapment did not
push through.Instead, complainants only filed a criminal complaint under Art. 282, The
Revised Penal Code, against respondent in connection with the blackmail and
extortion incident.
[1]
US$90,000.00 from CHAMPUS after filing fictitious medical claims in the name of Ms.
Sto. Tomas and her family.
According to respondent, he agreed to handle the case of Ms. Sto. Tomas and filed
the corresponding criminal cases for estafa through falsification of public documents
and perjury, and an administrative case for the revocation of Dr. Boyboys license. In
fact, complainants tried to persuade Ms. Sto. Tomas to withdraw the cases against them
but in vain. As Ms. Sto. Tomas showed no sign of softening her stance against
complainants, the latter started filing cases against her to force her to withdraw the
cases she had filed, and against respondent to force him to withdraw as counsel for Ms.
Sto. Tomas.
The Court referred this case to the IBP for its Committee on Bar Discipline to
investigate which thereafter submitted its Report and Recommendation, which was
adopted by the IBP, for respondents suspension from the practice of law for three (3)
months.
After thoroughly going over the records, we feel very uncomfortable with the
recommendation of the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (CBD-IBP). The CBD-IBP may have arrived at its conclusion on the basis
alone of affidavits and pleadings without any testimonial evidence, contrary to
established procedure, despite the fact that the charges of blackmail and extortion are
factual matters which must be established and proved with sufficient competent
evidence.
We must emphasize that a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not
suffice.Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient
evidence to support the charge. This brings to the fore the application of the age-old but
familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his allegations. In the case before us, it is
enough for respondent to deny complicity in the alleged blackmail or extortion, without
more, for he is not under obligation to prove his negative averment, much less to
disprove what has not been proved by complainants. Thus, we have consistently held
that if the complainant/plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of
action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim,
the respondent/defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.
The records are barren of any evidence that would prove respondents
culpability. Other
than
complainants naked
assertion that
respondent
demandedP300,000.00 from them which was later allegedly increased to P400,000.00,
in exchange for the dropping of the charges against them for estafa, no other proof was
presented to back up the accusation. Precisely, the absence of any evidence of
blackmail and extortion prompted the CBD-IBP to resolve the case against
respondent solely on the self-serving declarations of the parties set forth in their
pleadings. Thus the Report and Recommendation states -
After a painstaking scrutiny and careful evaluation of the statements and counterstatementsmade by the parties in their respective pleadings, the undersigned finds
[4]
Lamentably, the evidence against respondent does not meet the mandated
standard.At best, complainants would indulge in presumptions which, unfortunately,
cannot be a valid basis to slap respondent with administrative sanctions.
It is relevant to note at this point that on 16 October 2000 the Assistant City
Prosecutor of Angeles City dismissed for lack of probable cause the criminal case
against respondent Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr., for violation of Art. 282 of The Revised
Penal Code, in connection with the alleged blackmail and extortion filed by
complainants against respondent. Relevant excerpts of the Assistant City Prosecutors
findings follow
[5]
As regards the accusation against Atty. Yabut, the same would necessarily fail on
the basis alone of the allegation that he made the demand for money right there
in his law office x x x x. Nevertheless, even assuming en arguendo that this case
against Atty. Yabut is given due course, the result would still be the same. The
existence of a very strong motive on the part of Wilfredo Boyboy or his wife Dr.
Boyboy to get back at him for exposing them in their modus operandi victimizing
CHAMPUS beneficiaries, whether true or not, relegate their accusation to a mere
made-up story or possibly a concoction designed to silence Atty. Yabut. Doubtful
of its commission, as it is, the doubt should always favor the one accused. In
addition, proof of this instant charge is uncorroborated except the lone statement
of Wilfredo Boyboy. There must be positive proof of a clear and convincing evidence
against Atty. Yabut considering that the charge is a very serious accusation with far
reaching implications x x x x. Therefore, considering that x x x the evidence are
not enough to indict the respondents of the charge, this Investigation opines for
the outright dismissal of this case for lack of a prima facie case.
[6]
Thus, we are perplexed: If complainants could not even hurdle the low quantum and
quality of proof needed to sustain a finding of probable cause, how could the CBD-IBP
conclude with definiteness that complainants evidence has crossed the much more rigid
threshold of substantial evidence?
Concededly, respondents defense of denial is inherently weak. But where denial is
set up as a defense, courts should not at once look upon it with wary eyes for there are
occasions where it could actually be the real and untarnished truth. Indeed, what other
kind of evidence must be adduced by respondent, who is asserting the non-occurrence
of extortion or blackmail, if not denial?
Quite surprisingly, the very plain terms of the Report and Recommendation would
show in effect that the CBD-IBP erroneously passed upon the credibility of witnesses -
In the first place, complainants have averred in chronological order and in a detailed
manner the events involved in the charge. There is hardly any reason to doubt their
asseverations as they contained details that only an insider or one privy to the
transaction would have known.
Secondly, the undersigned had laboriously searched for any improper motive on
the part of the complainants that drove them to file the instant suit but found
none. The record, however, shows that complainants and respondent had no previous
acquaintance and did not know each other since Adam. It was only when Ms. Sto.
Tomas was referred to respondent that the latter came to know for the first time about
the complainants x x x x Such being the case, it would, therefore, be utterly
unthinkable and taxing to the imagination to consider the instant case as a
harassment suit. Hence, it is safe to conclude that complainants have been
genuinely moved by a serious quest for justice for the wrongful and illicit
conduct as shown by respondent(underscoring supplied).
The words now written in bold in the first and second paragraphs above quoted for
emphasis are but puerile dialectics and conclusions devoid of evidentiary support. It is
significant that in its Order of 21 August 2001, the CBD-IBP dispensed with a fulldress hearing, i.e., the presentation of testimonial evidence, purportedly to expedite
the proceedings. Instead, it required the parties to simply file their respective
memoranda and thereafter submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings.
Thus, there was obviously nothing upon which an assessment on credibility of
witnesses may be predicated, since the CBD-IBP never had the opportunity of hearing
the witnesses, or observing their deportment and manner of testifying.
[7]
The oftentimes thin but clear line between fact and prevarication is not always
discernible from a mere reading of the cold pages of the records. Certainly, only a judge
who had personally heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor on the stand can
arrive at an informed and intelligent judgment on whom to believe and whom not to
believe.
There can be no quarrel that the act of the CBD-IBP in dispensing with the
hearing is fairly within the bounds of permissible legal procedure; for after all, as
observed in the ponencia, a trial-type hearing is not always de rigueur in
administrative proceedings. But we emphasize that since the CBD-IBP inexorably
anchored its Report and Recommendation on complainants credibility, a trialtype hearing becomes an indispensable requirement in this case.
It must be stressed that the CBD-IBP is tasked to look into and investigate beyond
the serious allegations of wrongdoing purportedly committed by a member of the Bar,
and thereafter recommend the imposition of the proper administrative penalty upon the
culpable party, when warranted by the evidence. Failure of respondent to appear at the
scheduled hearings despite notices did not relieve the CBD-IBP of the duty to diligently
inquire into the factual assertions of complainants in their pleadings and affidavits.
Ordinary prudence dictates that it should have proceeded with the hearings and
accordingly received ex parte the testimonial evidence of complainants. If respondent
failed to appear once or twice because he was abroad to have a thorough medical
check-up and the long awaited relaxation from hectic schedules, he should have been
warned that if he should not appear again the evidence of the complainants would be
received ex parte and he may be considered to have waived his right to appear and
present his evidence thereafter. But no such warning appears to have been made
before this case was eventually decided on the merits.
Considering the dismal state of complainants evidence, we cannot rule out the
possibility that, as asserted by respondent, the instant disbarment case was illmotivated being retaliatory in nature and aimed at striking back at him for having filed
the criminal case for estafa and an administrative case for grave misconduct,
dishonesty and malpractice against Dr. Lydia Boyboy. Verily, respondents fears of being
stricken back may just as well be viewed as good and equally plausible as the blackmail
and extortion alleged by complainants but which have not been established with an iota
of evidence or any degree of certitude.
We can only echo in principle our admonition in Castaos v. Escao, Jr., which
although involving a bribery charge against a judge, may nevertheless apply by analogy
in the present recourse:
[8]
of trapping and capturing felons in the act of committing clandestine crimes, such as
sale and distribution of prohibited drugs, blackmail, extortion and bribery. It can provide
hard-to-dispute real evidence of culpability in the form of the marked money. Had
complainants pursued the alleged planned entrapment of respondent, their case could
have assumed an entirely different complexion.
Complainants explanation that they failed to entrap respondent for lack of funds, is
too lame and flimsy an excuse. It was not necessary for them to raise the whole amount
allegedly demanded by respondent to set up an entrapment, for a few genuine bills
stuffed with blank papers cut to resemble money bills would have been sufficient for the
purpose. Law enforcement authorities have employed this standard technique in cases
where the amount demanded by the person to be apprehended is too
substantial.Undoubtedly, Director Balancio of the NBI, who purportedly suggested the
entrapment of respondent, should be conversant with such technique but, unfortunately,
no explanation was given for not applying the accepted standard procedure except
allegedly for lack of funds. This, we say, is incredible!
Even more strange is the fact that Director Balancio was not even presented to
testify in behalf of complainants to prove at least that the supposed blackmail or
extortion was reported to him, and that complainants indeed sought his help relative
thereto.
Looking at the present instance with an absolutely objective eye, we are not
disposed to accept as gospel truth complainants imputation of criminal or administrative
wrongdoing to respondent in view of the existence of a wide chasm between the
accusations and proof. The accusations should be fittingly treated for what they are mere accusations founded on speculation and conjecture, if not sheer temerity. For
these reasons, we are unable to yield assent to the Report and Recommendation of the
CBD-IBP, otherwise the decision that would be handed down would unlock Pandoras
box of abuse. Perhaps we may not realize it, but lawyers would be at the mercy of the
shrewd, the sinister, and the disgruntled who could very easily vent their rancor against
members of the Bar through the mere expedient of hurling unsubstantiated - worse,
even malicious and prevaricated - claims. Surely, all lawyers may fall victims of this
vicious scheme.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint for disbarment against
respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR., is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
[1]
Art. 282 punishes the crime of Grave Threats. Blackmailing and extortion are punished under Art. 283
on Light Threats. See Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 1993 ed., p. 559.
[2]
See People v. Quidato, G.R. No. 117401, 1 October 1998, 297 SCRA 1, 8.
[3]
[4]
[5]
Docketed as I.S. No. 00-0592, Wilfredo Boyboy and Dr. Lydia Boyboy v. Atty. Victoriano Yabut, Jr. and
Arlene Sto. Tomas,
[6]
[7]
[8]
EN BANC
This refers to the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court, dated
February 6, 2002, finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy
of continuing membership in the legal profession and ordering his disbarment from the
practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
In essence, respondent reiterates his innocence by denying authorship and
participation in the falsification of the subject deed of donation. However, he admits his
negligence and expresses remorse for his failure to diligently perform his duties as
notary public with respect to the notarization of the said deed of donation. Respondent
pleads for compassion and mercy and asks that the Court be more lenient in imposing
penalty for the infractions he has committed.
As early as the case of Santos vs. Dichoso and reiterated in the case of Martin vs.
Felix Jr., this Court held:
[1]
[2]
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for
the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has
consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of the administrative penalty.
There is no question that respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties as
a notary public. In fact, there is preponderance of evidence showing that he subverted
the clear provisions of Section 1 of Public Act 2103, otherwise known as An Act
[3]
[6]
Likewise, the failure of the respondent to submit to the proper authorities a copy of
the subject deed of donation which he notarized does not directly prove that he tried to
cover up the falsification committed.
It must also be noted that in the criminal case for falsification filed by complainant
against several accused including herein respondent, the city prosecutor of Pasig found
no sufficient evidence to indict respondent. Even the decision of the lower court in Civil
Case No. 65883 which was filed for the nullification of the subject deed of donation did
not contain any specific finding as to the alleged participation of respondent in the
falsification of the subject deed.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[11]
[12]
[13]
In Flores vs. Chua, the respondent lawyer was disbarred after he was found guilty
of notarizing a forged deed of sale. But again, the penalty of disbarment was imposed
because in a previous administrative case, respondent was found guilty of violating Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and had been sternly warned that a
repetition of a similar act or acts or violation committed by him in the future will be dealt
with more severely. The Court also took into consideration the other infractions or acts
of misconduct committed by the respondent such as forum shopping, committing
falsehood, injurious, willful and unprofessional conduct of publishing, or causing the
publication, in a newspaper of general circulation of a pending case, causing undue
delay in the court proceedings and for notarizing a document without the party being
present.
[15]
[16]
In Roces vs. Aportadera, the Court suspended the respondent lawyer from the
practice of law for a period of two years after it was found out that he has dubious
involvement in the preparation and notarization of the falsified sale of his clients
property.
[17]
Thus, taking into consideration the foregoing jurisprudence, the totality of the acts of
misconduct proven to have been committed by herein respondent, his admission of
negligence, plea for compassion and the fact that this is his first offense, the Court finds
it proper to reconsider the penalty imposed. Nonetheless, the Court reiterates the
principle that where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon
his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any. The penalty of suspension, both from respondents
practice of law and from his commission as a notary public is apropos to the offenses he
committed.
[18]
[1]
[2]
[3]
Section 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized
by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where
the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate
shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his
certificate shall so state. (Emphasis ours)
[4]
Sec. 246. Matters to be entered therein. - The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological
order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person
executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the instrument,
the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the
instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall
likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof, and shall give to each
entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. x x x. A certified
copy of each months entries as described herein and a certified copy of any instrument
acknowledged before him shall, within the first ten days of the month next following, be forwarded
by the notary to the clerk of the court of first instance of the province (or city) where he exercises
his office, and shall be filed under the responsibility of such officer, provided, that if there is no
entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of the
certified copies herein required. (Emphasis ours)
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Entitled, Heir of Cesar Flores Namely: Maria Evangelina Flores Palparan, Plaintiff, vs. Gregorio G.
Flores, Maria Eugenia Flores Garcia, Virgilio R. Garcia and Magdalena G. Flores, Defendants
[9]
[10]
Resurreccion vs. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129, 136 (1998); T-Boli Agro-Industrial Development Inc. vs.
Solilapsi, AC No. 4766, December 27, 2002.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
[15]
[16]
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
[17]
[18]
Flores vs. Chua, supra; Bernardo Vda. de Rosales vs. Ramos, AC No. 5645, July 2, 2002
EN BANC
[Adm. Case No. 501. October 26, 1968.]
IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NOTARY PUBLIC ATTY.
ZACARIAS MANIGBAS,Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEY; DISBARMENT; NOTARY PUBLIC; LACK OF
CARE IN ASCERTAINING THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS ACKNOWLEDGING
DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM; INSTANT CASE. Where there is no showing
that respondent was in league with the bank officers who may have
perpetrated a scheme in issuing fraudulent loans in violation of the charter of
the Rural Bank of Lucena so as to warrant the finding that he had himself
committed falsification and his participation in notarizing said documents is
not inconsistent with lack of knowledge on his part of the fraud, the
recommendation of the Solicitor General that respondent "be exonerated of
the charge of falsification contained in the report of the NBI and submitted
to the Supreme Court as basis of these proceedings," but that for his failure
to exercise utmost care in ascertaining the identity of the persons
acknowledging documents before him, he be warned to be more careful
hereafter, with the further warning that a similar complaint against him in
the future will merit more drastic action is approved.
DECISION
DIZON, J.:
Respondent Zacarias Manigbas, a member of the bar, was charged with
alleged acts of falsification in violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code, in that in the jurat of certain documents, later introduced in evidence
as Exhs. D and E, he, as Notary Public, made it appear that said documents
were subscribed, sworn to and signed by Pablo de la Cruz before him and in
his presence, in Lucena City, when in truth and in fact they were signed in
Manila and not in his presence. The matter having been referred to the office
of the Solicitor General for appropriate action, the corresponding
investigation was held, in the course of which said respondent was given
ample opportunity to defend himself. Upon the evidence presented thereat,
the Solicitor General made the following findings:
jgc:chanroble s.com.ph
As a result of the above findings, and considering all the material evidence,
the Solicitor General holds the view that the respondent "is chargeable only
with failure to exercise utmost care in the performance of his functions as a
Notary Public," and that his case "is similar to that of Tahimik Ramirez v.
Atty. Jaime Ner (Administrative Case No. 500, September 27, 1967) where it
appeared that the respondent notarized a deed of sale of a vehicle without
requiring the presence of the vendee during the execution of the document
and in which case We held that the act committed by said respondent was
not serious enough to justify disbarment nor suspension. As a consequence,
the recommendation of the Solicitor General is that respondent herein "be
exonerated of the charge of falsification contained in the report of the NBI
and submitted to this Honorable Court as basis of these proceedings", but
that for his failure to exercise utmost care in ascertaining the identity of the
persons acknowledging documents before him, he be warned to be more
careful hereafter, with the further warning that a similar complaint against
him in the future will merit more drastic action.
As We consider the findings of the Solicitor General as fully borne out by the
evidence, and the respondent, in his Answer dated September 29, 1968, has
expressly agreed to and accepted the recommendation made in the report,
both the findings and recommendation are hereby approved.
WHEREFORE, the herein respondent is hereby warned to be more careful in
the future in the performance of his duties as Notary Public, and that any
well grounded complaint in the future against him upon similar grounds will
merit a stiffer penalty. It is so ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles,
Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., did not take part.
EN BANC
[A.C. No. 5624. January 20, 2004]
Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the
Court of Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the
resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November
29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their children to
respondent.
In the mid-morning of January 15, 2002, while complainant was with her children in
the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied by armed men,
suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children.
He threatened to forcefully take them away with the help of his companions, whom he
claimed to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation.
Alarmed, complainant immediately sought the assistance of the Tanjay City Police.
The responding policemen subsequently escorted her to the police station where the
matter could be clarified and settled peacefully. At the police station, respondent caused
to be entered in the Police Blotter a statement that he, assisted by agents of the NBI,
formally served on complainant the appellate courts resolution/order. In order to diffuse
the tension, complainant agreed to allow the children to sleep with respondent for one
[3]
night on condition that he would not take them away from Tanjay City. This agreement
was entered into in the presence of Tanjay City Chief of Police Juanito Condes and NBI
Investigator Roger Sususco, among others.
In the early morning of January 16, 2002, complainant received information that a
van arrived at the hotel where respondent and the children were staying to take them to
Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the children to another room,
where they stayed until later in the morning.
On the same day, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City,
Branch 31, a verified petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his
right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged Court of Appeals resolution. In
the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a
certification dated January 18, 2002 from the Court of Appeals stating that no such
resolution ordering complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent had
been issued.
[4]
[5]
At the hearing of the petition for habeas corpus on January 23, 2002, respondent
did not appear. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint alleging that respondent violated his
attorneys oath by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious Court of Appeals
Resolution in and outside a court of law. Furthermore, respondent abused and misused
the privileged granted to him by the Supreme Court to practice law in the country.
After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBPCommission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBPCBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period
of three years with a warning that another offense of this nature will result in his
disbarment. On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Report and recommendation of the Commission with the modification that the penalty of
suspension be increased to six years.
[6]
Resolution was presented by respondent on at least two occasions: first, in his Petition
for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898,
which he filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City; and second, when he
sought the assistance of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover
custody of his minor children from complainant. Since it was respondent who used the
spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its fabrication.
[7]
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the
judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by
counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of
allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that
counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must
never be at the expense of the truth. Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility
states:
[8]
[10]
Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They
constitute gross misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states:
SECOND DIVISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
ATTY. EGMEDIO B. CASTILLON, JR.,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
December 19, 2005
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
Antique.[2] The case was decided in favor of the complainant and her
co-plaintiffs, and thereafter, a writ of execution was issued, by
virtue of which, defendants were ejected from the property. However,
respondents, with his co-defendants subsequently entered the
disputed property and harvested the palay planted therein.
[3]
[4]
with
the
modification
that
instead
of
imprisonment,
cancelled
and
reset
due
to
the
unavailability
of
the
[10]
proceedings,
to
wit:
i)
attempt
to
mislead
the
relative to the contempt charges against him are still pending when
in fact they had already been terminated; ii) placing too much
emphasis on the alleged lack of personality of the complainant to
file the disbarment complaint; and iii) failure to notify the
Commission of his change of address.[12]
Finding however, that the penalty of disbarment would be
reasonable
under
the
circumstances,
the
Commission
months suspension from the practice of law will provide him with
enough time to purge himself of his misconduct and will give him
the opportunity to retrace his steps back to the virtuous path of the
legal profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon is found
GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) month with a warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Respondents suspension is effective upon notice of this decision.
Let notice of this decision be spread in respondents record as an
attorney in this Court, and notice of the same served on the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE
Justice
WE CONCUR:
O.
TINGA Associate
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairman
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp.1-2.
[2]
Gertrudes Bantolo, et al. v. Coleta Castillon, et al., Civil Case No. 1345, RTC Antique,
Branch 10.
[3]
Rollo, p. 1.
[4]
Rollo, p. 2.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Rollo, p. 168.
[10]
[11]
Rollo, p. 170.
[12]
[13]
Rollo, p. 175.
[14]
Rollo, p. 176.
[16]
[17]
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L-79690-707 7 October 1988, 166 SCRA 316, 332.
[18]
Garcia v. Manuel, Adm. Case No. 5811, 20 January 2003, 395 SCRA 386, 392,
citations omitted.