Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REGALADO, J.:
Doubly distressing as the subject of administrative recourse to this Court is the present case where
the cause celebre is a star-crossed marriage, and the unlikely protagonists are an incumbent and a
retired member of the Judiciary.
In a sworn complaint for disbarment filed with this Court on June 6, 1995, complainant Judge
Priscilla Castillo Vda. de Mijares charged respondent Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the
Court of Appeals, with gross immorality and grave misconduct.1
After an answer2 and a reply3 were respectively filed by respondent and complainant, the Court,
in its Resolution dated February 27, 1996, resolved to refer the administrative case to Associate
Justice Fidel P. Purisima of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.
On March 4, 1997, Justice Purisima submitted his Report to this Court, with the following
recommendation:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing and without prejudice to the outcome of the aforesaid
Criminal Case No. 142481 for Bigamy, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent, former
Justice Onofre A. Villaluz, be found guilty of gross misconduct, within the contemplation of Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court on removal or suspension of attorneys, and therefor(e), he be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, commencing from the finality of
the Decision in this case, with a warning that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will
be dealt with more severely.
On the bases of the evidence adduced by the parties, Justice Purisima summarized the antecedent
facts in his aforestated Report and which we feel should be reproduced hereunder so that his
disposition of this case may be duly appreciated:
Complainant is the Presiding Judge of Branch 108 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, while
respondent former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime
Commission (PACC) headed by Vice-President Joseph E. Estrada.
Widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares, complainant commenced Special
Proceeding No. 90-54650 and therein obtained a decree declaring the said Primitivo Mijares
presumptively dead, after an absence of sixteen (16) years.
Complainant narrated that on January 7, 1994, she got married to respondent in a civil wedding
before Judge Myrna Lim Verano, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Carmona, Cavite and now Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City. Their
marriage was the culmination of a long engagement. They met sometime in 1977, when
respondent, as Presiding Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, Metro Manila, was trying a
murder case involving the death of a son of Judge Mijares. Since then, respondent became a close
family friend of complainant (TSN, p. 14; April 10, 1996). After the wedding, they received their
guests at a German restaurant in Makati. With the reception over, the newlywed(s) resumed their
usual work and activities. At 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, respondent fetched
complainant from her house in Project 8, Quezon City, and reached the condominium unit of
respondent two hours later at which time, she answered the phone. At the other end of the line was
a woman offending her with insulting remarks. Consternated, complainant confronted respondent
on the identity of such caller but respondent simply remarked "it would have been just a call at the
wrong number". What followed was a heated exchange of harsh words, one word led to another,
to a point when respondent called complainant a "nagger", saying "Ayaw ko nang ganyan! Ang
gusto ko sa babae, yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto ko". Get that marriage contract and have it
burned." Such unbearable utterances of respondent left complainant no choice but to leave in haste
the place of their would-be honeymoon. Since then, the complainant and respondent have been
living separately because as complainant rationalized, contrary to her expectation respondent never
got in touch with her and did not even bother to apologize for what happened (TSN, p. 13, April
10, 1996.
Several months after that fateful encounter of January 7, 1994, in a Bible Study session, the
complainant learned from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar, a member of the Bible Group, that
he (Judge Makasiar) solemnized the marriage between former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz and a
certain Lydia Geraldez. Infuriated and impelled by the disheartening news, complainant lost no
time in gathering evidence against respondent, such that, on June 6, 1995 she filed the instant
Complaint for Disbarment against him (Exh. "A").
On August 7, 1995, when she discovered another incriminatory document against respondent, the
complainant executed against respondent her "Supplemental Complaint Affidavit for
Falsification" (Exhs. "D" and "D-1").
Exhibit "C", marriage contract of respondent and Lydia Geraldez, dated May 10, 1994, was offered
by complainant to prove that respondent immorally and bigamously entered into a marriage, and
to show that the respondent distorted the truth by stating his civil status as SINGLE, when her
married Lydia Geraldez. This, the respondent did, to lead an immoral and indiscreet life. He
resorted to falsification to distort the truth, complainant lamented. Also presented for complainant
were: Marriage Contract between her and respondent (Exh. "B"); Order declaring her first
husband, Primitivo Mijares, presumptively dead (Exh. "E"); and Affidavit of Judge Myrna Lim
Verano, who solemnized the marriage between her (complainant) and respondent (Exhs. "F" and
"F-1").
Respondent gave a different version. According to him, what he inked with the complainant on
January 7, 1994 was merely but a "sham marriage". He explained that he agreed as, in fact, he
voluntarily signed the Marriage Contract marked Exh. "B", in an effort to help Judge Mijares in
the administrative case for immorality filed against her by her Legal Researcher, Atty. Joseph
Gregorio Naval, Jr., sometime in 1993. Respondent theorized that when his marriage with
complainant took place before Judge Myrna Lim Verano, his marriage with Librada Pea, his first
wife, was subsisting because the Decision declaring the annulment of such marriage had not yet
become final and executory, for the reason that said Decision was not yet published as required by
the Rules, the service of summons upon Librada Pea having been made by publication, and
subject Decision was not yet published. To this effect was the Certification by Mrs. Nelia B.
Rosario, Acting Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Exh.
"4").
After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds itself in full accord with the findings and
recommendation of Justice Purisima. Herein respondent is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution of demanding
respect and dignity.4 He himself asserts that at the time of his marriage to herein complainant, the
decision of the court annulling his marriage to his first wife, Librada Pea, had not yet attained
finality. Worse, four months after his marriage to petitioner, respondent married another woman,
Lydia Geraldez, in Cavite, after making a false statement in his application for marriage license
that his previous marriage had been annulled.
Respondent's subterfuge that his marriage to petitioner was just a "sham" marriage will not justify
his actuations. Even if the said marriage was just a caper of levity in bad taste, a defense which
amazes and befuddles but does not convince, it does not speak well of respondent's sense of social
propriety and moral values. This is aggravated by the fact that he is not a layman nor even just an
ordinary lawyer, but a former Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court and, thereafter, a Justice of the
Court of Appeals who cannot but have been fully aware of the consequences of a marriage
celebrated with all the necessary legal requisites.5
On this score, we rely once again on the perceptive findings and discussion of Investigating Justice
Purisima which we quote with approval:
That, on January 7, 1994 respondent knowingly and voluntarily entered into and signed a Marriage
Contract with complainant before Judge Myrna Lim Verano, then Presiding Judge of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona, Cavite, competent under the law to solemnize a civil
marriage, is beyond cavil. As stated under oath by respondent himself, he could not be forced to
do anything not of his liking (TSN, April 2, 1996, p. 15a).
That what complainant and respondent contracted was a valid marriage is borne out by law and
the evidence. To be sure, all the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage under Articles
2 and 3 of the Family Code, i.e., legal capacity of the contracting parties, who must be a male and
a female; consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer; authority of the
solemnizing officer; a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of Title
I on marriage, Family Code; and a marriage ceremony with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer, and their personal declaration that they take each other as
husband and wife, in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age, were satisfied and
complied with.
The theory of respondent that what (was) solemnized with complainant was nothing but a "sham"
marriage is too incredible to deserve serious consideration. According to respondent, he entered
into subject marriage in an effort to save the complainant from the charge of immorality against
her. But, to repeat: regardless of the intention of respondent in saying "I do" with complainant
before a competent authority, all ingredients of a valid marriage were present. His consent thereto
was freely given. Judge Myrna Lim Verano was authorized by law to solemnize the civil marriage,
and both contracting parties had the legal capacity to contract such marriage.
Without in anyway pre-empting whatever the Regional Trial Court of Manila will find in the
criminal case of Bigamy against herein respondent, and even assuming for the sake of argument
that the judgment in Civil Case No. 93-67048 decreeing the annulment of the marriage between
respondent and Librada Pena had not attained complete finality due to non publication of said
judgment in a newspaper of general circulation; that circumstance, alone, only made subject
marriage voidable and did not necessarily render the marriage between complainant and
respondent void.
Besides, as stressed upon by complainant, respondent stated under oath that his marriage with
Librada Pena had been annulled by a decree of annulment, when he (respondent) took Lydia
Geraldez as his wife by third marriage, and therefore, he is precluded, by the principle of estoppel,
from claiming that when he took herein complainant as his wife by a second marriage, his first
marriage with Librada Pea was subsisting and unannulled.
But, anyway, as it is not proper to make here a definitive findings as to whether or not respondent
can be adjudged guilty of bigamy under the attendant facts and circumstances, a crucial issue
pending determination in Criminal Case No. 142481 before Branch 12 of the Manila Regional
Trial Court, even assuming arguendo that what respondent contracted with complainant on January
7, 1994 was a "sham" marriage, as he terms it, the ineluctible conclusion is that what respondent
perpetrated was a gross misconduct on his part as a member of the Philippine Bar and as former
appellate Justice, at that. Even granting that the immorality charge against herein complainant in
the administrative case instituted against her by Atty. Joseph Gregorio Naval, Jr., is unfounded,
respondent was not justified in resorting to a "sham" marriage to protect her (complainant) from
said immorality charge. Being a lawyer, the respondent is surely conversant with the legal maxim
that a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong. If he never had any immoral love affair with
Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. de Mijares and therefore, he felt duty bound to help her in ventilating
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, respondent could have testified in her favor in said
administrative case, to assure all and sundry that what Atty. Joseph Gregorio Naval, Jr. complained
of in said administrative case was without any factual and legal basis.
In this only Christian country of the Far East, society cherishes and protects the sanctity of
marriage and the family as a social institution. Consequently, no one can make a mockery thereof
and perform a sham marriage with impunity. To make fun of and take lightly the sacredness of
marriage is to court the wrath of the Creator and mankind. Therefore, the defense of respondent
that what was entered into by him and complainant on January 7, 1994 was nothing but a "sham"
marriage is unavailing to shield or absolve him from liability for his gross misconduct, nay
sacrilege.
From the foregoing, it is evident that respondent dismally fails to meet the standard of moral fitness
for continued membership in the legal profession. The nature of the office of an attorney at law
requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law.6 Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The commission of
grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.7
However, considering that respondent is in the declining years of his life; that his impulsive
conduct during some episodes of the investigation reveal a degree of aberrant reactive behavior
probably ascribable to advanced age; and the undeniable fact that he has rendered some years of
commendable service in the Judiciary, the Court feels that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty
in this peculiar case. Hence, a suspension of two years, as recommended, would suffice as a
punitive but compassionate disciplinary measure.
WHEREFORE, finding herein respondent, former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of
immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof,
with the specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the
same or a similar offense hereafter.
\
[AC-5365. April 27, 2005]
Spouses FRANKLIN and LOURDES OLBES, complainants, vs. Atty. VICTOR V.
DECIEMBRE, respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Constituting a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility was the malevolent
act of respondent, who filled up the blank checks entrusted to him as security for a loan by writing
on those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at all, despite his full knowledge that the
loan they were meant to secure had already been paid.
The Case
Before us is a verified Petition[1] for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by
Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. Petitioners
charged respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar. After he had filed his Comment[2] on the Petition, the Court
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay, held
several hearings. During those hearings, the last of which was held on May 12, 2003,[3] the parties
were able to present their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. After the filing of the
parties respective formal offers of evidence, as well as petitioners Memorandum,[4] the case was
considered submitted for resolution. Subsequently, the commissioner rendered his Report and
Recommendation dated January 30, 2004, which was later adopted and approved by the IBP Board
of Governors in its Resolution No. XV-2003-177 dated July 30, 2004.
The Facts
In their Petition, Spouses Olbes allege that they were government employees working at the
Central Post Office, Manila; and that Franklin was a letter carrier receiving a monthly salary of
P6,700, and Lourdes, a mail sorter, P6,000.[5]
Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on July 1, 1999 her application for a loan from Rodela
Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to
respondent five Philippine National Bank (PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241-45), which served
as collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that might be obtained in the future.[6]
On August 31, 1999, Lourdes paid respondent the amount of P14,874.37 corresponding to the loan
plus surcharges, penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt,[7] herein quoted as
follows:
August 31, 1999
Received the amount of P14,874.37 as payment of the loan of P10,000.00 taken earlier by Lourdes
Olbes.
(Sgd.) Atty. Victor V. Deciembre
8-31-99
P10,000.00
PNB Check No. 46241 8/15/99[8]
Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up four (of the five) blank PNB
Checks (Nos. 0046241, 0046242, 0046243 and 0046244) for the amount of P50,000 each, with
different dates of maturity -- August 15, 1999, August 20, 1999, October 15, 1999 and November
15, 1999, respectively.[9]
On October 19, 1999, respondent filed before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal an
Affidavit-Complaint against petitioners for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. He
alleged therein that on July 15, 1999, around one-thirty in the afternoon at Cainta, Rizal, they
personally approached him and requested that he immediately exchange with cash their postdated
PNB Check Nos. 0046241 and 0046242 totaling P100,000.[10]
Several months after, or on January 20, 2000, respondent filed against petitioners another
Affidavit-Complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. He stated, among others, that on the same
day, July 15, 1999, around two oclock in the afternoon at Quezon City, they again approached him
and requested that he exchange with cash PNB Check Nos. 0046243 and 0046244 totaling
P100,000.[11]
Petitioners insisted that on the afternoon of July 15, 1999, they never went either to Cainta, Rizal,
or to Quezon City to transact business with respondent. Allegedly, they were in their office at the
time, as shown by their Daily Time Records; so it would have been physically impossible for them
to transact business in Cainta, Rizal, and, after an interval of only thirty minutes, in Quezon City,
especially considering the heavy traffic conditions in those places.[12]
Petitioners averred that many of their office mates -- among them, Juanita Manaois, Honorata
Acosta and Eugenia Mendoza -- had suffered the same fate in their dealings with respondent.[13]
In his Comment,[14] respondent denied petitioners claims, which he called baseless and devoid of
any truth and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him by not honoring
their commitment regarding their July 15, 1999 transactions. Those transactions, totaling
P200,000, had allegedly been covered by their four PNB checks that were, however, subsequently
dishonored due to ACCOUNT CLOSED. Thus, he filed criminal cases against them. He claimed
that the checks had already been fully filled up when petitioners signed them in his presence. He
further claimed that he had given them the amounts of money indicated in the checks, because his
previous satisfactory transactions with them convinced him that they had the capacity to pay.
Moreover, respondent said that the loans were his private and personal transactions, which were
not in any way connected with his profession as a lawyer. The criminal cases against petitioners
were allegedly private actions intended to vindicate his rights against their deception and violation
of their obligations. He maintained that his right to litigate should not be curtailed by this
administrative action.
Report of the Investigating Commissioner
In his Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The commissioner said that respondents version of the facts was not credible. Commissioner Dulay
rendered the following analysis and evaluation of the evidence presented:
In his affidavit-complaint x x x executed to support his complaint filed before the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Rizal respondent stated that:
2. That last July 15, 1999, in the jurisdiction of Cainta, Rizal, both LOURDES E. OLBES and
FRANKLIN A. OLBES x x x, personally met and requested me to immediately exchange with
cash, right there and then, their postdated checks totaling P100,000.00 then, to be immediately
used by them in their business venture.
Again in his affidavit-complaint executed to support his complaint filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City respondent stated that:
2. That last July 15, 1999, at around 2PM, in the jurisdiction of Quezon City, M.M., both
LOURDES E. OLBES and FRANKLIN A. OLBES x x x, personally met and requested me to
immediately exchange with cash, right there and then, their postdated checks totaling P100,000.00
then, to be immediately used by them in their business venture.
The above statements executed by respondent under oath are in direct contrast to his testimony
before this Commission on cross-examination during the May 12, 2003 hearing, thus:
ATTY PUNZALAN: (continuing)
Q. Based on these four (4) checks which you claimed the complainant issued to you, you filed two
separate criminal cases against them, one, in Pasig City and the other in Quezon City, is that
correct?
A. Yes, Your Honor, because the checks were deposited at different banks.
Q. These four checks were accordingly issued to you by the complainants on July 15, 1999, is that
correct?
A. I will consult my records, You Honor, because its quite a long time. Yes, Your Honor, the first
two checks is in the morning and the next two checks is in the afternoon (sic).
COMM. DULAY:
Which are the first two checks?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
The first two checks covering check Nos. 46241 and 46242 in the morning. And Check No. 46243
and 46244 in the afternoon, Your Honor.
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Q. Could you recall what particular time in the morning that these two checks with number
0046241 and 0046242 xxx have been issued to you?
A. I could not remember exactly but in the middle part of the morning around 9:30 to 10:00.
Q. This was issued to you in what particular place?
A. Here in my office at Garnet Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
Q. Is that your house?
A. No, its not my house?
Q. What is that, is that your law office?
A. That is my retainer client.
Q. What is the name of that retainer client of yours?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
Your Honor, may I object because what is the materiality of the question?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
That is very material. I am trying to test your credibility because according to you these checks
have been issued in Pasig in the place of your client on a retainer. Thats why I am asking your
client
COMM. DULAY:
The name of the client is not material I think. It is enough that he said it was issued here in Pasig.
What building?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
AIC Corporate Center, Your Honor.
COMM. DULAY:
What is the materiality of knowing the name of his clients office?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Because, Your Honor, the materiality is to find out whether he is telling the truth. The place, Your
Honor, according to the respondent is his client. Now I am asking who is that client?
COMM. DULAY:
Your answer.
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
A. It is AIC Realty Corporation at AIC Building.
Q. And the same date likewise, the complainants in the afternoon issued PNB Check Nos. 0046243
and 0046244, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So would you want to tell this Honorable office that there were four checks issued in the place
of your client in Pasig City, two in the morning and two in the afternoon?
A. That is correct, sir.
Respondent was clearly not being truthful in his narration of the transaction with the complainants.
As between his version as to when the four checks were given, we find the story of complainant[s]
more credible. Respondent has blatantly distorted the truth, insofar as the place where the
transaction involving the four checks took place. Such distortion on a very material fact would
seriously cast doubt on his version of the transaction with complainants.
Furthermore respondents statements as to the time when the transactions took place are also
obviously and glaringly inconsistent and contradicts the written statements made before the public
prosecutors. Thus further adding to the lack of credibility of respondents version of the transaction.
Complainants version that they issued blank checks to respondent as security for the payment of a
loan of P10,000.00 plus interest, and that respondent filled up the checks in amounts not agreed
upon appears to be more credible. Complainants herein are mere employees of the Central Post
Office in Manila who had a previous loan of P10,000.00 from respondent and which has since
been paid x x x. Respondent does not deny the said transaction. This appears to be the only previous
transaction between the parties. In fact, complainants were even late in paying the loan when it fell
due such that they had to pay interest. That respondent would trust them once more by giving them
another P200,000.00 allegedly to be used for a business and immediately release the amounts
under the circumstances described by respondent does not appear credible given the background
of the previous transaction and personal circumstances of complainants. That respondent who is a
lawyer would not even bother to ask from complainants a receipt for the money he has given, nor
bother to verify and ask them what businesses they would use the money for contributes further to
the lack of credibility of respondents version. These circumstances really cast doubt as to the
version of respondent with regard to the transaction. The resolution of the public prosecutors
notwithstanding we believe respondent is clearly lacking in honesty in dealing with the
complainants. Complainant Franklin Olbes had to be jailed as a result of respondents filing of the
criminal cases. Parenthetically, we note that respondent has also filed similar cases against the co-
employees of complainants in the Central Post Office and respondent is facing similar complaints
in the IBP for his actions.[15]
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings and conclusions of Commissioner Dulay, as approved and adopted by
the IBP Board of Governors. However, the penalty should be more severe than what the IBP
recommended.
Respondents Administrative Liability
Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.[16] It is
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good
moral character.[17] A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly
circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement
of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she] has sworn to be a fearless crusader.[18]
By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice.[19] Lawyers should
act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to
promote the publics faith in the legal profession.[20]
The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates the following:
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.
xxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxx
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
A high standard of excellence and ethics is expected and required of members of the bar.[21] Such
conduct of nobility and uprightness should remain with them, whether in their public or in their
private lives. As officers of the courts and keepers of the publics faith, they are burdened with the
highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor.[22]
The oath that lawyers swear to likewise impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest
degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. The oath is a sacred
trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable at all times. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any
conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them
unfit to continue to be officers of the court.[23]
In the present case, the IBP commissioner gave credence to the story of petitioners, who said that
they had given five blank personal checks to respondent at the Central Post Office in Manila as
security for the P10,000 loan they had contracted. Found untrue and unbelievable was respondents
assertion that they had filled up the checks and exchanged these with his cash at Quezon City and
Cainta, Rizal. After a careful review of the records, we find no reason to deviate from these
findings.
Under the circumstances, there is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevitable
conclusion. Respondent does not deny the P10,000 loan obtained from him by petitioners.
According to Franklin Olbes testimony on cross-examination, they asked respondent for the blank
checks after the loan had been paid. On the pretext that he was not able to bring the checks with
him,[24] he was not able to return them. He thus committed abominable dishonesty by abusing the
confidence reposed in him by petitioners. It was their high regard for him as a member of the bar
that made them trust him with their blank checks.[25]
It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by
his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the
checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document,
resorted to for his material gain.
And he did not stop there. Because the checks were dishonored upon presentment, respondent had
the temerity to initiate unfounded criminal suits against petitioners, thereby exhibiting his vile
intent to have them punished and deprived of liberty for frustrating the criminal duplicity he had
wanted to foist on them. As a matter of fact, one of the petitioners (Franklin) was detained for three
months[26] because of the Complaints. Respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonesty and
professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from,
and highly unbecoming, a member of the bar.
Good moral character is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law.
It is equally essential to observe this norm meticulously during the continuance of the practice and
the exercise of the privilege.[27] Good moral character includes at least common honesty.[28] No
moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor.[29] The
rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous
behavior.[30] Lawyers must be ministers of truth. Hence, they must not mislead the court or allow
it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good faith.[31]
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable;[32] they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not
satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws.[33]
Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His
propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-
up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome.
In Eustaquio v. Rimorin,[34] the forging of a special power of attorney (SPA) by the respondent
to make it appear that he was authorized to sell anothers property, as well as his fraudulent and
malicious inducement of Alicia Rubis to sign a Memorandum of Agreement to give a semblance
of legality to the SPA, were sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law for five years.
Here, the conduct of herein respondent is even worse. He used falsified checks as bases for
maliciously indicting petitioners and thereby caused the detention of one of them.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby indefinitely
SUSPENDED from the practice of law effective immediately. Let copies of this Decision be
furnished all courts as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant, which is directed to append a copy
to respondents personal record. Let another copy be furnished the National Office of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.
Motion for Reconsideration in Sp. Proc. No. MTC, Sta. Ana, Candaba,
01-01 Pampanga.[6]
Motion for Issuance of Mandatory Injunction MTC, San Fernando,
Pampanga[7]
Reply of Norberto San Angel dated October MTC, Branch 1, San Fernando,
16, 2001 Pampanga[15]
Sworn Statement dated October 15, 2001 of Civil Case No. 8509 filed with
May Paule, et al. the MTC San Fernando,
Pampanga[16]
Criminal Complaint of Myrna Bulaon Criminal Case No. 01-1401 MTC
of Sta. Ana, Pampanga[17]
Reply Affidavit of Myrna Bulaon - do-[18]
Affidavit of Renato P. Canlas Special Proceeding No. 01-01 at
MTC, Sta. Ana, Pampanga[19]
Respondent also attended court hearings as shown in the following Minutes of Hearings, Orders,
and Transcripts of Stenographic Notes:
Date Time Case No. Court
March 2, 2001 9:00 A.M. 01-01 (Ejectment Case) MTC/Sta. Ana,
Pampanga[20]
April 23, 2001 1:30 P.M. Crim. Case No. 00- RTC-58 Angeles
1164 City[21]
March 6, 2001 2:15 P.M. Crim. Case No. 00- - do -[22]
1164
August 3, 2001 9:00 A.M. Crim. Case No. 01- MTC, Sta. Ana.
1401 Pampanga[23]
During those times that respondent attended hearings, he declared in his Daily Time Records
(DTRs) that he was present at the Office as shown by the DTRs attached to the complaint.
The actuations of the respondent provoked the filing of several criminal cases against him, to wit:
(1) Falsification of Public Documents,[29]
(2) Usurpation of Functions,[30] and
(3) Violation of Republic Act No. 6713.[31]
Still, despite the cases filed against him, respondent continued attending hearings in different
courts as demonstrated by the following photostatic copies of the Minutes of the trials of the
cases:[32]
Dates Time Court
October 24, 2002 2:00 PM MTC Arayat, Pampanga[33]
November 7, 2002 2:00 PM - do -
January 17, 2003 9:00 AM MTC Sta. Ana,
Pampanga[34]
February 10, 2003 9:00 AM MTC Arayat, Pampanga[35]