Beltran vs. Abad A. M. No. No. 1 139 39 March March 28, 28, 1983 1983 By. CDDrio
Facts: Charged by Atty. Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine Trial Trial Layers La yers Association, !nc., of practicing la itho"t having been previo"sly ad#itted to the Philippine Bar, $r. $r. %l#o S. Abad co"ld co"ld not deny and had to ad#it the practice. &e failed to ta'e the layers oath and failed to sign his na#e in the (oll of Attorneys. ). &e paid paid his d"e d"es s on J"l J"ly y *+, *+, )- )- *. &e a as s to ta' ta'e e the oat oath h on J"ly J"ly *, *, )- )- +. And on J"l J"ly y *, )-, )-, he appeared appeared befor before e the SC and and the Cler' Cler' of Co"rt Co"rt as'ed as'ed hi# to sign the Layer/s 0ath and aited for his t"rn to do the 0ath. And hile aiting for his t"rn to ta'e the oath he as called by the &onorable Chief J"stice Fernando Fer nando to disc"ss the co#plaint lodged against by a certain Jorge 1y. 1y. &e as instr"cted by the CJ to prepare an (eply to the (eply of the Co#plainant on the basis of his Anser to his Co#plaint. 2. J"ly +), )-, )-, he 3led his his (eply (eply ith Prayer Prayer that the the co"rt deter#i deter#ine ne his 3tness 3tness to be a #e#ber of the bar. 4. $ay )5 )65, )65, itho"t itho"t action to his his Prayer Prayer he receiv received ed an invitation invitation fro# fro# !BP on the "pco#ing 7en Asse#bly and for the settle#ent of his acco"nts. . &e paid his d"es d"es thereafte thereafterr and even receiv received ed invitation invitation to vote for !BP !BP o8cers. o8cers. -. So#ethi So#ething ng in )6), Jorge 1y, the co#plainan co#plainantt died. died. &e i##ediate i##ediately ly infor#ed infor#ed the Co"rt on this fact and Praying that he be alloed to ta'e the oath. 6. 9o action action as ta' ta'en en by SC. &e contin"e contin"ed d to be assesse assessed d of his his d"es d"es by !BP C and even received Certi3cate of $e#ber of 7ood Standing. !SS1%: ;09 a layer be ad#itted to the practice failing to do all other essential re<"isites s"ch as= ). Ta'ing Ta'ing the 0ath *. And Signing his na#e in the Attorney/s (oll>
(1L!97: 90. &e as declared g"ilty of conte#pt of co"rt and as 3ned Php 455.
LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS, ?s. ATT@. QUINCIAN !AILCES, A.C. No. "39 A#ri$ 12, 19%1 By CDDrio
&AC'S( !t appears that as #e#ber of the bar and in his Capacity as a notary p"blic, ?ailoces, on ece#ber )2, )45, ac'noledged the eec"tion of a doc"#ent p"rporting to be the last ill and testa#ent of one Tarcila ?isitacion de Jes"s. Presented for probate before the Co"rt of First !nstance of 9egros 0riental, the ill as i#p"gned by her s"rviving spo"se and da"ghter. Conse<"ently the probate co"rt, 3nding that the ill as a forgery, rendered decision denying probate to the ill. This decision e 3nal. 0n the basis of this decision a cri#inal action for falsi3cation of p"blic doc"#ent as 3led against ?ailoces and the three attesting itnesses to the ill before the Co"rt of First !nstance of 9egros 0riental here after trial, they ere fo"nd g"ilty and convicted 0n appeal, the Co"rt of Appeals a8r#ed the decision ith regard to ?ailocess b"t #odi3ed it ith record to his coacc"sed. As 3nally adD"dged, ?ailoces as fo"nd g"ilty beyond reasonable do"bt of the cri#e of falsi3cation of p"blic doc"#ent de3ned and penaliEed in Article )-) of the (evised Penal Code and as sentenced to s"er an indeter#inate Penalty ranging fro# * years, 2 #onths and ) day of prision correccional as #ini#"#, to 6 years and ) day of prison mayor as #ai#"#, ith the accessories of the la, 3nest and costs. This sentence having beco#e 3nal, ?ailoces began serving it in the ins"lar penitentiary. As a conse<"ence, the oended party instit"ted the present disbar#ent proceedings.
!n his anser, respondent not only disp"tes the D"dg#ent of conviction rendered against hi# in the cri#inal case b"t contends that the sa#e is based on ins"8cient and inconcl"sive evidence, the charge being #erely #otivated by sheer vindictiveness, #alice and spite on the part of herein co#plainant, and that to give co"rse to this proceeding o"ld be tanta#o"nt to placing hi# in do"ble Deopardy. &e pleads that the co#plaint be dis#issed.
ISSUE( )N *i+ar/0 #roc*i/ o/ a $ayr co/ic0* o4 a cri i/o$i/ ora$ 05r#i05* co/+0i050 *o5$ 6o#ar*y. RULIN7( N.
The disbar#ent of an attorney does not parta'e of a cri#inal proceeding. (ather, it is intended Gto protect the co"rt and the p"blic fro# the #iscond"ct of o8cers of the co"rtG HIn re $ontagne and o#ing"eE, + Phil. 466I, and its p"rpose is Gto protect the ad#inistration of D"stice by re<"iring that those ho eercise this i#portant f"nction shall be co#petent, honorable and reliable= #en in ho# co"rts and clients #ay repose con3denceG.
The cri#e of hich respondent as convicted is falsi3cation of p"blic doc"#ent, hich is indeed of this nat"re, for the act is clearly contrary to D"stice, honesty and good #orals. &ence, s"ch cri#e involves #oral t"rpit"de. !ndeed, it is ellsettled that Ge#beEEle#ent, forgery, robbery, and sindling are cri#es hich denote #oral t"rpit"de and, as a general r"le, all cri#es of hich fra"d is an ele#ent are loo'ed on as involving #oral t"rpit"de
DLRES D. PARIAS vs. A''. SCAR P. PA7UIN' A.C. No. %29:. J5$y 13, 2;;"< By CDDrio
Facts: Atty. Pag"into accepted the ann"l#ent case of Co#plainant Parias for an acceptance fee of Php *4,555 and 3ling fee of Php *,455. Pl"s other epenses. Php )5,555 as paid to #onths after along ith the 3ling fee. After abo"t 2 #onths, co#plainant folloed "p ith the respondent and as told that the cased as 3led ith (TC of $anila and a hearing as set. She as later infor#ed that the hearing as cancelled. ;itho"t any develop#ent on the case, co#plainant chec'ed ith (TC of $anila and fo"nd that no case of ann"l#ent as 3led on her behalf. She as pro#ised for the ref"nd of her #oney paid b"t as able to collect only "pon 3ling of a isbar#ent Case vs. her layer. A#icable settle#ent as #ade and co#plainant ithdre her co#plaint and layer apologiEed to her client. isbar#ent proced"re contin"ed despite ithdraal of the co#plainant !ss"e: ;09 disbar#ent case ill be dis#issed "pon ithdraal of co#plaint> ("ling: 90. Aproceeding for s"spension or disbar#ent is not in any sense a civil action here the co#plainant is a plainti and the respondent layer is a defendant. isciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and aord no redress for private grievance. They are "nderta'en solely for the p"blic elfare. The attorney is called "pon to anser to the co"rt for his cond"ct as an o8cer of the co"rt. The co#plainant or the person ho called the attention of the co"rt to the attorneys alleged #iscond"ct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the o"tco#e ecept as all good citiEens #ay have in the proper ad#inistration of D"stice.K A layer has the d"ty to give ade<"ate attention and ti#e to every case he accepts. A layer i#pliedly arrants that he possesses the necessary diligence, learning and s'ill to handle each case. &e sho"ld eert his best D"dg#ent and eercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the p"rs"it or defense of his clients ca"se.K
MAR JANE D. !ELASC, A. C. No. =;33 Co#plainant, A''. C>ARLIE DRIN and Pro#"lgated: A''. >EC'R CEN'EN, (espondents. J"ly *6, *556 By Crio
FACTS: Co#plainant alleged that she as appointed as Ad#inistratri of her father/s estate, %d"ardo oroin ho *) Jan"ary ), in Pap"a 9e 7"inea. (espondents ere collaborating co"nsels for 0ppositor, Josephine Abar<"eE. Atty. oroin fooled co#plainant by deceitf"l #eans into #a'ing her sign an %tra J"dicial Settle#ent and eed of Partition, allotting co#plainant the s"# ofP),*),5-6.55 giving the para#o"r of the deceased, Josephine Abar<"eE, the share of P-,*,26.55 and also allotting co#plainants to H*I alleged illegiti#ate brothers and an alleged illegiti#ate sister, a si#ilar s"# of P),*),5-4.55 each alleging that s"ch sharing is in accordance ith la. B"t no share as assigned to co#plainants #other, ho as the legal ife of r. %d"ardo oroin. To partially satisfy co#plainants share of Php ),*),5-6.55, Atty. oroin re<"ired co#plainant to sign a paper hich as an alleged Con3r#ation of A"thority to Sell the property of co#plainants father located at ingspoint s"bdivision, Bagbag, 9ovaliches, "eEon City hich she did not sign this. ;hen the co#plainant visited the said property, there as already a fo"rdoor tonho"se constr"cted. She later learned that it as sold by Atty. oroin to %vangeline (eyes@one#"ra , by forging the signat"re of co#plainants late father. Atty. &ector B. Centeno, a 9otary P"blic of "eEon City, 'noing that co#plainants father as already dead as of *) Jan"ary ), #ade it appear in the said eed of Absol"te Sale, that co#plainants father appeared before hi# in "eEon City on ) Jan"ary )-. Also a case for Falsi3cation of P"blic oc"#ent as 3led against Atty. &ector Centeno before the $etropolitan Trial Co"rt, "eEon City. And after the arraign#ent, Atty. Centeno did not any#ore appeared in co"rt and D"#ped bail. !SS1%: ;09 Forgery and Falsi3cation of doc"#ents itho"t the necessity of cri#inal conviction arrants disbar#ent or s"spension (1L!97: @es. For a party to forgery and falsi3cation Atty. as inde3nitely s"spended. ;hile Atty. Centeno having falsi3ed doc"#ents several ti#es and even D"#ped bail as disbarred. !n disbar#ent proceedings, the b"rden of proof generally rests "pon the co#plainant, and for the co"rt to eercise its disciplinary poers, the case against the respondent #"st be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proofK
JSELAN 7UE!ARRA,vs. A''. JSE EMMANUEL EALA A.C. No. :13% 2;;: By CDDrio
A55+0 1,
&AC'S(Co#plainant is the h"sband of the para#o"r of Atty. %ala, for#er SportscasterMPBA Co##issioner, #odel socialite !rene $oDe. for Ggrossly i##oral cond"ct and "n#itigated violation of the layerNs oath.G
Facts shos that 7"evarra #et %ala by ay of introd"ction by his then 3ancOe !rene $oDe. (espondent as #arried to $arianne Tantoco and had + children. !##ediately after the #arriage of co#plainant to $oDe. 7"evarra discovered that (espondent and his ife $oDe had been echanging aectionate tet #essages and has apparently been seeing each other reg"larly and hen confronted. She 3nally abandoned the conD"gal ho#e. And co#plainant also discovered a folded social card ith ! L0?% @01/ and "pon opening it bearing the folloing ords: “My everdearest Irene, By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may nd meaning in what you're about to do. ometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to nd !eeting happiness but e"perience eternal pain# Is it only for us to nd a true love but then lose it again# $r is it because there's a bigger plan for the two of us# I hope that you have e"perienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly possible to love you. %nd today, as you make your vows . . . I make my own vow to &$( I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the rst time I laid eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the nal moments of your single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again. )o not worry about me( I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me a lifetime. %lways remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, &$ *I++ %+*%& . . . %) -/ *$)/01+ -I2 &$ )$( B/ MI/ . . . . %) MI/ %+$/, and I *I++ %+*%& B/ &$0 %) &$0 %+$/( I +$3/ &$ 1$0/3/0, I +$3/ &$ 1$0 %+*%&. % +$2 % I'M +I3I2 M& -*//-I/ &$'++ B/(4 /ternallyyours, $+I5
Co#plainant later fo"nd that %ala and $oDe is no living together as h"sband and ife and shoing the#selves to fa#ily and friends as s"ch. Th"s disbar#ent co#plaint as 3led vs. %ala. %ala did not deny the relationship b"t stated in his Anser that it not grossly i##oral/ and that his legal ife is not even opposing this relationship. !BP investigator fo"nd %ala to be g"ilty ith reco##endation for disbar#ent. B"t !BP Board of 7overnors reversed the decision on the gro"nd that Ann"l#ent of $arriage of $oDe hich as then pending has been 3nally approved d"ring pendency of the case. ISSUE( ;09 disbar#ent proceedings ill prosper despite the approval of ann"l#ent of #arriage of one party to the charged of ad"ltery hich as #ade the basis of the proceeding. RULIN7( N. According to SC (espondent, Atty. Jose %##an"el $. %ala, is DISBARRED for grossly i##oral cond"ct, violation of his oath of o8ce, and violation of Canon ), ("le ).5) and Canon -, ("le -.5+ of the Code of Professional (esponsibility.K Citing the r"ling in 6angan v. 0amos,2 vi7 :
The ac<"ittal of respondent (a#os QofR the cri#inal charge is not a bar to these Qad#inistrativeR proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satis3ed by cond"ct hich #erely enables one to escape the penalties of cri#inal la. Moreover, this 8ourt, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely di9erent capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case .
