FIRST DIVISION
ROGELIO
R.
SANTOS,
SR.,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
5858
December 11, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
RODOLFO C.
BELTRAN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This is an Administrative
Complaint for Disbarment[1]
filed by Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. against Atty. Rodolfo C. Beltran on the
grounds of gross misconduct and malpractice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The pertinent facts
are as follows:
Spouses Filomeno Santiago
Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas Rodriguez had ten children, namely, Romeo,
Filomeno, Jr., Arturo, Erlinda, Ma. Alicia, Arcely, Renato, Alberto and
Benito and complainant Rogelio Santos, Sr. After the death of Filomeno,
Benita donated their two residential lots situated at 11 Javier
Baritan,
Malabon, Metro Manila, consisting of 489 and 333.4 square meters,
respectively,
and covered by Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) Nos. R-18060 and
R-18061,
including the ancestral house situated thereon, in favor of the nine
children,
except complainant. Respondent lawyer notarized the Deed of Donation.[2]
Benita Rodriguez died.
Complainant and his brother, Alberto, were appointed administrators[3]
in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the spouses' estate,
docketed as SP. Proc. No. 516-AF, entitled In the Matter of the
Intestate
Estate of Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas
Rodriguez,
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 26
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 9, 1999,
complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent before the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging
that when respondent notarized the subject Deed of Donation, his
siblings
did not personally appear before him.[4]
Complainant submitted the affidavit executed by Benito and Renato
attesting
to the fact that they signed the Deed of Donation not in the law office
of the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision. The
Deed also showed that his siblings secured their Community Tax
Certificates
twenty-two days after the execution of the Deed of Donation, or on
September
9, 1994. Complainant contended that respondent notarized the Deed of
Donation
in disregard of Article 904[5]
of the Civil Code. Moreover, he argued that his siblings were American
citizens who were thus disqualified from owning real properties in the
Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant further
alleged that respondent appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case
No. 73560 for falsification of public document, which he filed against
Renato and Benito, without being engaged by him or authorized by the
court;
that respondent represented conflicting interest when he entered his
appearance
as defense counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client,
Erlinda
R. Santos-Crawford, was the plaintiff; and that respondent, through
insidious
machination acquired the titles of two residential lots at Villa Benita
Subdivision owned by Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent denied the
allegations. He confirmed the due execution of the Deed of Donation and
submitted in support thereof the affidavit executed by Mely Lachica,
the
secretary of his law office. In her Affidavit, Lachica categorically
stated
that she caused all parties to sign the Deed. She, nevertheless
admitted
that she forgot to change the date of the execution of the Deed from
August
18, 1994 to September 9, 1994 when all the parties had secured their
CTCs.[6]
Respondent argued that
complainant's siblings may still acquire properties in the Philippines
through hereditary succession even though they were already American
citizens.
The certifications issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
were not conclusive proof of the arrival and departure of his siblings
considering that there were many ports of entry in the country.
Respondent
also declared that complainant humiliated his mother when, in his
presence
and that of his siblings, complainant uttered the unsavory Tagalog
words,
"Putang ina mo matanda ka, walanghiya ka, walang pinagkatandaan dapat
mamatay
ka na."[7]
Respondent denied having
represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73560 on December 15, 1999
when he appeared as private prosecutor. He explained that complainant
filed
a complaint for falsification of public document against him and his
nine
siblings, docketed as I.S. No. 04-99-3187, before the Office of the
City
Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, relying on the affidavit executed by
Benito
and Renato that they signed the Deed of Donation in their houses at
Villa
Benita and not at respondent's office. The prosecutor dismissed the
complaint.
A second action for falsification of public document was filed by
complainant
against Renato and Benito, docketed as Criminal Case No. 73560.
Respondent
appeared at one of the hearings of the said case to defend himself from
the accusation of Benito and Renato. Respondent emphasized that he did
not ask for any compensation from complainant for that isolated
appearance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent denied having
acquired any property under litigation. On February 16, 1999, he bought[8]
two parcels of land inside Villa Benita Subdivision, covered by TCT
Nos.
T-50223 and 50225, from a corporation owned by the Santoses, Fabern's
Inc.,
and not from Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, as claimed by
complainant.
He was surprised when sometime in August 2002, complainant caused the
annotation
on the said titles of an adverse claim that the properties belonged to
the estate of Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos. Complainant relied on
the Contract of Development dated May 10, 1995 which Fabern's Inc.
executed
in favor of Villa Benita Management and Development Corporation where
respondent
was one of the directors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent admitted
having represented Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford in Civil Case No. 12105
for
ejectment, entitled "Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford v. Renato R. Santos and
Rogelio R. Santos, Sr.,"[9]
involving a land covered by TCT No. T-10168 at No. 1 F.S. Avenue, Villa
Benita Subdivision, Cabanatuan City and the improvements thereon. He
also
acted as defense counsel of Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo
Agsaway
in Civil Case No. 14823[10]
for ejectment filed by Rogelio Santos on behalf of Erlinda R. Santos
involving
the same property. He emphasized that the decision in Civil Case No.
12105
had long been executed, thus the attorney-client relationship between
him
and Erlinda Santos-Crawford was also terminated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 19, 2002, the
IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating his notarial commission
and
recommended that his commission be suspended for a period of one year.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Board of Governors,
in Resolution No. CBD Case No. 99-670, modified the recommendation,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RESOLVED to
ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and,
finding
the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable
laws and rules, with modification, and considering respondent's
violation
of his notarial obligation, Respondent's Commission as Notary Public is
hereby SUSPENDED, with DISQUALIFICATION from being appointed as Notary
Public for two (2) years from notice of final decision.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 11, 2002,
respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforestated Resolution, which
was denied by the Board on December 14, 2002 on the ground that it has
lost jurisdiction thereof upon its endorsement to this Court.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In essence, complainant
seeks the disbarment of the respondent for allegedly notarizing a Deed
of Donation without the affiants personally appearing before him.
Indeed,
the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be
imposed
only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a
member
of the bar.[14]
Corollary thereto, gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong
conduct,
the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful
intent and not mere error in judgment."[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rule is that a notarized
document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect
to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public
have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[16]
In the instant case, complainant failed to controvert the said
presumption
by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the quantum of evidence
shows
that complainant's siblings appeared before the respondent as notary
public
and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of Renato and Benito Santos in
their affidavit that they did not sign the document in the law office
of
the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita is admissible only
against
them.[17]
Likewise, we find the allegation of the complainant that it was
physically
impossible for his siblings to sign the document untenable. The
certifications
issued by the BID that the complainant's siblings were absent at the
time
of the execution of the Deed of Donation is not absolute. There are
many
ports of entry which complainant's siblings may have used in coming
into
the country. The possibility that complainant's siblings executed and
signed
the Deed is not remote. The discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed
and the date when complainant's siblings obtained their CTCs had been
substantially
explained in the affidavit executed by the secretary of the law office,
Mely Lachica.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The allegation that
respondent represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73569 without
being
retained or authorized by the court is also untenable. Respondent
adequately
explained his isolated appearance at one of the hearings. The
transcript
of stenographic notes shows that respondent himself was in doubt as to
the nature of his appearance in the case. In entering his appearance as
private prosecutor, he did not intend to represent complainant but only
to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato that he
notarized
the Deed of Donation in their absence. This was patent in the
transcript
of stenographic notes wherein he admitted that he himself was in doubt
as to his position. We are not persuaded by complainant who tried to
insinuate
that it was unethical for the respondent to represent him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the charge that
respondent acquired properties under litigation in violation of Article
1491[18]
of the Civil
Code, records show that respondent acquired the property from
Fabern's
Inc., and not from Spouses Filemon and Benita Santos. Complainant's
allegation
that respondent as director of Villa Benita Management and Development
Corporation fraudulently caused the transfer of titles of properties,
specifically
parcels of lands owned by the family corporation, Fabern's Inc., by
executing
a management and development contract, lacks basis. Respondent may not
be held accountable based on mere allegation that through insidious
machinations
he deprived Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, now their estate, of
the
properties. Surmises, suspicion and conjectures are not bases of
culpability.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lastly, complainant
indicted respondent for representing conflicting interest in violation
of Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, viz:
A lawyer
shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is conflict
of
interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client,
it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his
duty
to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client,
this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client."
This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have
been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed
or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance
of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which
will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents
him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of
his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion
of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
Civil
Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by Arcely Y. Santos in behalf of
Erlinda Santos-Crawford against complainant and Renato Santos.
Respondent,
however appeared as counsel for Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and
Danilo
Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 for ejectment filed by complainant as
attorney-in-fact
of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No. 14823, although litigated by
complainant, was actually brought in behalf of and to protect the
interest
of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Respondent's act of representing the
parties
against whom his other client, Erlinda Santos-Crawford, filed suit
constituted
conflict of interest.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY of representing conflicting
interests
and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year
effective immediately. Respondent is further STERNLY WARNED that a
commission
of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let copies of this Resolution
be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP, as well
as
on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for
their
information and guidance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban,
Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Petition, Rollo, pp. 248–260.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, pp. 18–20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
The September 20, 1999 Certifications of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) on the travel records, pertaining to petitioner's
siblings'
arrival and departure showed that it was physically impossible for them
to appear before the respondent, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ROMEO R. SANTOS, Control No. 092019990570769B, born on September 12,
1929,
an American citizen using Passport No. 151582510, who arrived in the
Philippines
on August 12, 1994 & left for Los Angeles on August 18, 1994, &
came back to the Philippines on August 23, 1995; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ALICIA SANTOS SIROTA, Control No. 092019990530766B, born on June 19,
1951,
an American citizen using U.S. Passport No. 034056327 who left the
Philippines
for Los Angeles on August 30, 1994; 4chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ARTURO R. SANTOS, Control No. 092019990570770B, born on December 14,
1944,
an American citizen using U.S. Passport No. 151125864, who arrived in
the
Philippines on July 28, 1994 left for Narita, Tokyo on August 23, 1994,
& came back to the Philippines only on March 19, 1995;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ERLINDA SANTOS SALVIO, Control No. 092019990530767B, born on April 28,
1942, an American citizen using Passport No. 034495662, who arrived in
the Philippines on July 27, 1994 & left for Los Angeles on August
11,
1994 and she came back on June 8, 1995; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FELOMINO R. SANTOS, JR., Control No. 092019990570771B, born on July 31,
1936, a Filipino citizen using Philippine Passport No. BB212998, who
left
the Philippines since 1987 and already a green card holder who came
back
on December 1, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime,
except
in cases expressly specified by law. Neither can he impose upon the
same
any burden, encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind
whatsoever.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 431.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., p. 463.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Deed of Sale, Rollo, p. 191.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, pp. 345–349.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 350–356.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., p. 281.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 261.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., p. 282.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Alitagtag v. Garcia, A.C. No. 4738, 10 June 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Spouses Whitson v. Atienza, A.C. No. 5535, 28 August 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Loyola, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115734, 23
February
2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Admissions of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as
to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another, except as
hereinafter
provided.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior
courts, and other officers and employees connected with the
administration
of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an
execution
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
their
respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and
rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take
part by virtue of their profession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Hornilla and Ricafort v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 1 July 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo, p. 355.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |