EN BANC
ISIDRA
TING-DUMALI,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5161
April 14, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
ROLANDO S.
TORRES,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:
In a Complaint-Affidavit[1]
filed on 22 October 1999 with this Court, complainant Isidra
Ting-Dumali
charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres with presentation of false
testimony;
participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the
forgery
of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement;
and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from
such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of
legal and judicial ethics.
The complainant is one
of the six children of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente
Ting.
Her siblings are Marcelina T. Rivera; Miriam T. Saria; Felicisima T.
Torres,
who is married to herein respondent; Vicente Ting, Jr.; and Eliseo
Ting.
Their parents died intestate and left several parcels of land, to
wit:
a)
One half of Lot 1586 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, containing
an area of 43,908 square meters more or less, and covered at that time
by TCT No. (T-6203) RT-19151 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b)
Lot 1603 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, containing an area of
16,073 square meters, more or less, and covered at that time by TCT No.
(T-6425) RT-7688 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite;
c)
Lot 1605 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, containing an area of
22,131 square meters, more or less and covered at that time by TCT No.
T- 1869 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite.
According to the
complainant,
the respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and her
brothers
and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them
even
if it involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act.
She attributes to the respondent the following acts or omissions:
1.
The
respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against,
the perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law
Miriam
when they executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
dated
11 November 1986, wherein the two made it appear that they were the
sole
heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, knowing
fully
well that the same was false. He presented that document to the
Register
of Deeds of Cavite for the transfer of the title over Lot No. 1586 in
the
names of his wife and Miriam. The lot was later sold to Antel Holdings
Inc. for P1,195,400. Payment was already made to, and received by,
Felicisima
and Miriam.
2. The
respondent
participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the
forgery
of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement
dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603 when he knew that she was in
Italy
at that time working as an overseas contract worker. He even presented
the falsified document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite to
transfer
the title over the property in favor of his wife Felicisima and
sister-in-law
Marcelina. The forgery or falsification was made to enable them to sell
Lot 1603 to Antel Holdings, Inc. Payment was received and
misappropriated
by Felicisima and Marcelina.
3. In LRC Rec. No.
5964
entitled In Re:Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Original
Copy
and Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-1869 Covering Lot No. 1605 of
the
Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, filed by complainant’s
sisters
Marcelina and Felicisima on 24 October 1995, the respondent made gross
misrepresentation and offered false testimony to the effect that
Marcelina
and Felicisima are the only children and legal heirs of the late
spouses
Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for the purpose of obtaining a new
title
in their names. With the reconstituted title, and with the express
conformity
of the respondent, Felicisima and Marcelina were able to sell Lot
1605
to Antel Holdings, Inc., for P2,213,100 and profited from
the
sale to the exclusion of their other siblings. Partial payment
was
even received pending the reconstitution proceedings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. On 20
November
1996, the respondent made gross and false misrepresentations for the
purpose
of profiting therefrom when he requested the buyer through a certain
Mrs.
Ong to release the full payment for Lot 1605 under the pretense that
the
order of reconstitution would be released within a month when he knew
that
it would be impossible because he presented evidence in the
reconstitution
case only on 12 August 1997. To facilitate the release of the
money,
he even used the stationery of the Philippine National Bank, of which
he
was an employee.
In his Comment,[2]
the respondent denies the allegations of the complaint and asserts that
he did not take advantage of his profession to deprive any of the
co-heirs
of his wife of the estate left by his parents-in-law.
Insofar as Lot 1586
is concerned, the respondent affirms that Felicisima and Miriam were
not
motivated by any desire to solely profit from the sale. Neither can he
be faulted by the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
dated
17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603 because he had no part in the
execution
of the document. All the while he believed in good faith that the Ting
sisters had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. If ever
complainant’s
signature was affixed on that document, it was done in good faith.cralaw:red
The respondent admits
that he was the counsel of Marcelina Ting Rivera, et. al., in LRC Case
No. 5964 for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-1869. The false
testimony
of Marcelina in that case that she and Felicisima were the only
children
of spouses Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante could not be faulted on him
because such was a clear oversight. Moreover, the sale of Lot 1605 to
Antel
Holdings, Inc., was the decision of Marcelina and his wife. His
conformity
through his signature was pro-forma because the property was a
paraphernal
property of Marcelina and his wife. Anent his alleged gross and false
misrepresentation
that the order of reconstitution would be released by the end of
November
1996, suffice it to say that the assurance was made by the Clerk of
Court,
Mr. Rosauro Morabe. Besides, petitions for reconstitution are usually
uncontested
and granted by courts.cralaw:red
Finally, the respondent
believes that complainant intended to harass him in bombarding him with
numerous lawsuits, i.e., this administrative case; Civil Case No.
TM-855
for “Annulment of Documents, Titles, and Reconveyance plus Damages”;
and
a criminal case for Estafa and Falsification of Public Documents.cralaw:red
In her reply, the complainant
denies the presence of toka or verbal will allegedly made by her mother
and allegedly implemented by their eldest brother Eliseo in view of the
following circumstances: (1) her mother met a sudden death in 1967; and
partition of the properties in total disregard of their father was
morally
reprehensible, since the latter was still alive; (2) when their mother
died, four of the siblings were still minors including respondent’s
wife
herself; (3) on 5 February 2000, Eliseo wrote his siblings, in response
to the previous letter of Felicisima, Marcelina, and Miriam, denying
the
existence of a toka. She further states that the respondent was not
merely
a passive onlooker but, as he admitted, the administrator of the
properties
of the Ting spouses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 14 June 2000, this
Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report, and recommendation or decision.[3]
On 9 January 2003, after
due hearing and consideration of the issues presented by both parties,
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the Commission on
Bar
Discipline of the IBP found the actuations of the respondent to be
violative
of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the
Code
of Professional Responsibility. Thus she recommended that the
respondent
be disbarred from the practice of law.[4]
In its Resolution No.
XV-2003-333[5]
of 21 June 2003, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted
Commissioner San Juan’s report, but reduced the penalty to suspension
from
the practice of law for six years.cralaw:red
We fully agree with
the Investigating Commissioner in her findings of facts and conclusion
of culpability. The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is
morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable
fraternity
of the legal profession. In his long years as a lawyer, he must have
forgotten
his sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once again that the
Court
inculcate in the hearts of all lawyers that pledge; thus:
LAWYER'S OATH
I, ________________________________________
, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as
well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor
give
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice,
and
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation
or purpose of evasion.cralaw:red
SO HELP ME GOD.cralaw:red
This oath to which all
lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to
the
pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing
law
to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but
a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all
times.
By swearing the lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of truth and the
rule
of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation
of
justice.[6]
This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
which provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and for legal processes.cralaw:red
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.cralaw:red
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer
shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
CANON 10 — A lawyer
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.cralaw:red
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.cralaw:red
All of these underscore
the role of a lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. When the
respondent
took the oath as a member of the legal profession, he made a solemn
promise
to so stand by his pledge. In this covenant, respondent miserably
failed.cralaw:red
The records show that
Felicisima and Miriam stated in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
dated 11 November 1986 that they are the children of Julita
Reynante
and thus adjudicated only between them Lot No. 1586 to the exclusion of
their other siblings.[7]
There was concealment of the fact that there were other compulsory
heirs
to the estate of the deceased. Significantly, the respondent is the
brother-in-law
of complainant. Being married to complainant’s sister, he knew of his
wife’s
siblings. In fact, he declared that the complainant stayed with them
while
she was in the Philippines.[8]
Yet, the respondent presented that document to the Register of Deeds of
General Trias, Cavite, to effect the transfer of the title of the lot
in
question in the name of his wife and his sister-in-law Miriam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It also bears noting
that the respondent was consulted[9]
regarding the falsification of complainant’s signature in the
Extrajudicial
Settlement[10]
dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603, which contains a purported
waiver
by the complainant of her right over the property. Marcelina admitted
that
she signed complainant’s name in that document.[11]
Such act of counterfeiting the complainant’s signature to make it
appear
that the complainant had participated in the execution of that document
is tantamount to falsification of a public document.[12]
Instead of advising
Marcelina to secure a written special power of attorney and against
committing
falsification, he presented[13]
such document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a new title for the
lot
in favor of Marcelina and his wife.[14]
He himself, therefore, may also be held liable for knowingly using a
falsified
document to the damage of the complainant and her other co-heirs.[15]Notably,
he also admitted in an affidavit dated 22 May 1995 that he prepared the
legal documents for the transfer of Lot 1603.[16]
Respondent did not advise
his wife and his sisters-in-law from doing acts which are contrary to
law.
He must have kept in mind the first and foremost duty of a lawyer,
which
is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold
the
Constitution, and obey the laws of the land. The Code of Professional
Responsibility
underscores the primacy of such duty by providing as its canon that a
lawyer
shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect
for law and legal processes.[17]
For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to
which
society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of
justice.[18]
As such, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate.[19]
He should not, therefore, engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful
conduct.[20]
He makes himself unfit to remain in the profession who commits any such
unbecoming act or conduct.[21]
Respondent’s argument
that the non-declaration by his wife and his sister- in-law Marcelina
of
the other siblings in LRC Rec. No. 5964 for the reconstitution of title
involving Lot 1605 was a mere oversight does not deserve credence in
view
of the following circumstances: First, the petition clearly names only
Felicisima and Marcelina as the petitioners when there were six
siblings
who were heirs of the unpartitioned lot.[22]
Second, during the hearing of said case when the respondent asked
Marcelina
whether she has brothers and sisters other than Felicisima, the latter
said none. The transcript of that hearing reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. TORRES:
Q
Madame Witness, are you the only child or daughter of the deceased Sps.
Vicente Ting, Jr. and Julita Reynante?
WITNESS:
A
No, sir. We are two, Felicisima Torres and I.cralaw:red
Q
Do you have other brothers and sisters?
A
None, sir.[23]
The respondent allowed
Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony[24]
in court, and he never corrected the same despite full knowledge of the
true facts and circumstances of the case.[25]
Moreover, in knowingly offering in evidence such false testimony, he
himself
may be punished as guilty of false testimony.[26]
Moreover, under Canon
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes candor,
fairness,
and good faith to the court. He shall “not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.”[27]
This Rule was clearly and openly violated by the respondent when he
permitted
Marcelina to falsely testify that she had no siblings aside from
Felicisima
and when he offered such testimony in the petition for reconstitution
of
the title involving Lot 1605.cralaw:red
The respondent must
have forgotten that as an attorney he is an officer of the court called
upon to assist in the administration of justice. Like the court itself,
he is an instrument to advance its cause. For this reason, any
act
on his part that obstructs and impedes the administration of justice
constitutes
misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It may not be amiss
to mention that to further support the reconstitution, he offered in
evidence
an Affidavit of Loss, which was executed by Marcelina and notarized by
him. During the hearing of this administrative case, Marcelina admitted
that her statement in that affidavit that the title was in her
possession
was false, as she was never in possession of the title[29]
and would not, therefore, know that the same was lost.cralaw:red
Moreover, in a letter
dated 20 November 1996 addressed to a certain Mrs. Ong, the respondent
requested the release of 50% of the remaining balance for the sale of
Lot
1605, relaying to Antel Holdings, Inc., through Mrs. Ong that he was
assured
by the Clerk of Court that the order directing the reconstitution of
title
for Lot 1605 would be released within the month.[30]
Respondent’s information was misleading because he presented evidence
only
on 12 August 1997, or almost a year after he sent the letter.[31]
Such act, therefore, shows lack of candor and honesty on the part of
the
respondent.cralaw:red
Respondent’s acts or
omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable
dishonor
to the legal profession. They constitute gross misconduct for
which
he may be disbarred or suspended pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of
the
Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 27. Disbarment
or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. -- A
member
of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for 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 oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case
without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at
law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers,
constitutes malpractice.cralaw:red
In the determination
of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an erring lawyer, we
take
into account the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings, which is
to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who
exercise
this important function shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men
in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.[32]
While the assessment of what sanction may be imposed is primarily
addressed
to our sound discretion, the sanction should neither be arbitrary or
despotic,
nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice. Rather, it
should
ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the
purity
and independence of the bar.[33]
Thus, the supreme penalty
of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court
and member of the bar. We will not hesitate to remove an erring
attorney
from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for
it.[34]Verily,
given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case, we
find
that respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the severance of his
privilege
to practice law for life, and we therefore adopt the penalty
recommended
by the Investigating Commissioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
we find respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of gross misconduct
and
violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of
continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
from the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll
of Attorneys, effective immediately.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Resolution
be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall forthwith
record
it in the personal files of the respondent; all the courts of the
Philippines;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies
thereof
to all its Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies
of the Republic of the Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-ASntiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, 1-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, 47-51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, 209.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Per the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan
of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline; Rollo, unpaginated.
[5]
Notice of Resolution signed by Jaime M. Vibar, National Secretary, IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline Board of Governors; Rollo, unpaginated.
[6]
Radjaie v. Alovera, A.C. No. 4748, 4 August 2000, 337 SCRA 244, 255-256.
[7]
Exhibit “L,” Rollo, 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, 25 September 2001, 76-78.
[9]
TSN, 30 May 2002, 20-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Art. 172(1), in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.
[11]
TSN, 4 April 2002, 37-38; TSN, 11 April 2002, 28-29.
[12]
Art. 172(1), in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.
[13]
Exh. “L-1,” Rollo, 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Exh. “D-3,” Rollo, 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Art. 172, last paragraph, in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Exh. “R-1,” Original Records (OR), Vol. II, 65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal ethics 61 (6th ed. 1997), citing Comments of the
IBP Committee that drafted the Code of Professional Responsibility, pp.
1-2 (1980).
[19]
Id., 62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility; Collantes v. Renomeron,
A.C. No. 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 584.
[21]
In re Gutierrez, 115 Phil. 647, 651 (1962).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Exh. “J,” Rollo, 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Exh. “J-2,” Rollo, 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Art. 182, Revised Penal Code.
[25]
TSN, 16 May 2002, 33-35.
[26]
Art. 184, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[28]
People v. Jardin, 209 Phil. 134, 142 (1983).
[29]
TSN, 16 May 2002, 13-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Exh. “K,” Rollo, 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, 25 September 2001, 72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
In re MacDougall, 3 Phil. 70, 78 (1903).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 602.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Garcia v. Manuel, A.C. No 5811, 20 January 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |