FIRST DIVISION
ANA
MARIE
CAMBALIZA,
Complainant,
A.
C.
No. 6290
July 14, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
ANA LUZ B.
CRISTAL-TENORIO,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:
In a verified Complaint
for Disbarment filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 30 May 2000, complainant Ana Marie
Cambaliza,
a former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her
law office, charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct and
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.cralaw:red
On deceit, the complainant
alleged that the respondent has been falsely representing herself to be
married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a prior and subsisting
marriage
with another woman. However, through spurious means, the
respondent
and Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., were able to obtain a false marriage
contract,[1]
which states that they were married on 10 February 1980 in
Manila.
Certifications from the Civil Registry of Manila[2]
and the National Statistics Office (NSO)[3]
prove that no record of marriage exists between them. The false
date
and place of marriage between the two are stated in the birth
certificates
of their two children, Donnabel Tenorio[4]
and Felicisimo Tenorio III.[5]
But in the birth certificates of their two other children, Oliver
Tenorio[6]
and John Cedric Tenorio,[7]
another date and place of marriage are indicated, namely, 12 February
1980
in Malaybalay, Bukidnon.chanrobles virtual law library
As to grossly immoral
conduct, the complainant alleged that the respondent caused the
dissemination
to the public of a libelous affidavit derogatory to Makati City
Councilor
Divina Alora Jacome. The respondent would often openly and
sarcastically
declare to the complainant and her co-employees the alleged immorality
of Councilor Jacome.cralaw:red
On malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that the respondent
(1) cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is
not
a member of the Philippine Bar; (2) converted her client’s money to her
own use and benefit, which led to the filing of an estafa case against
her; and (3) threatened the complainant and her family on 24 January
2000
with the statement “Isang bala ka lang” to deter them from
divulging
respondent’s illegal activities and transactions.cralaw:red
In her Answer, the respondent
denied all the allegations against her. As to the charge of
deceit,
she declared that she is legally married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.
They were married on 12 February 1980 as shown by their Certificate of
Marriage, Registry No. 2000-9108 of the Civil Registry of Quezon City.[8]
Her husband has no prior and subsisting marriage with another woman.chanrobles virtual law library
As to the charge of
grossly immoral conduct, the respondent denied that she caused the
dissemination
of a libelous and defamatory affidavit against Councilor Jacome. On the
contrary, it was Councilor Jacome who caused the execution of said
document.
Additionally, the complainant and her cohorts are the rumor-mongers who
went around the City of Makati on the pretext of conducting a survey
but
did so to besmirch respondent’s good name and reputation.cralaw:red
The charge of malpractice
or other gross misconduct in office was likewise denied by the
respondent.
She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is registered with the
Department of Trade and Industry as a single proprietorship, as shown
by
its Certificate of Registration of Business Name.[9]
Hence, she has no partners in her law office. As to the estafa
case,
the same had already been dropped pursuant to the Order of 14 June 1996
issued by Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.[10]
The respondent likewise denied that she threatened the complainant with
the words “Isang bala ka lang” on 24 January 2000.cralaw:red
Further, the respondent
averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by the complainant to
get even with her. She terminated complainant’s employment
after receiving numerous complaints that the complainant extorted
money from different people with the promise of processing their
passports and marriages to foreigners, but she reneged on her
promise.
Likewise, this disbarment complaint is politically motivated: some
politicians
offered to re-hire the complainant and her cohorts should they
initiate
this complaint, which they did and for which they were re-hired.
The respondent also flaunted the fact that she had received numerous
awards
and citations for civic works and exemplary service to the
community.
She then prayed for the dismissal of the disbarment case for
being
baseless.cralaw:red
The IBP referred this
case to Investigating Commissioner Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico.cralaw:red
During the hearing on
30 August 2000, the parties agreed that the complainant would submit a
Reply to respondent’s Answer, while the respondent would submit a
Rejoinder
to the Reply. The parties also agreed that the Complaint, Answer,
and the attached Affidavits would constitute as the respective direct
testimonies
of the parties and the affiants.[11]chanrobles virtual law library
In her Reply, the complainant
bolstered her claim that the respondent cooperated in the illegal
practice
of law by her husband by submitting (1) the letterhead of
Cristal-Tenorio
Law Office[12]
where the name of Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior
partner;
and (2) a Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card[13]
signed by the respondent as Chairperson where her husband is identified
as “Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.” She added that respondent’s
husband even appeared in court hearings.cralaw:red
In her Rejoinder, respondent
averred that she neither formed a law partnership with her husband nor
allowed her husband to appear in court on her behalf. If there
was
an instance that her husband appeared in court, he did so as a
representative
of her law firm. The letterhead submitted by the complainant was
a false reproduction to show that her husband is one of her law
partners.
But upon cross-examination, when confronted with the letterhead
of
Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her signature, she admitted that
Felicisimo
R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A.
Panghulan,
who is also not a lawyer, are named as senior partners because they
have
investments in her law office.[14]
The respondent further
declared that she married Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., on 12 February
1980
in Quezon City, but when she later discovered that their marriage
contract
was not registered she applied for late registration on 5 April
2000.
She then presented as evidence a certified copy of the marriage
contract
issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General and authenticated
by
the NSO. The erroneous entries in the birth certificates of her
children
as to the place and date of her marriage were merely an
oversight.[15]
Sometime after the parties
submitted their respective Offer of Evidence and Memoranda, the
complainant
filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint on 13 November 2002 after
allegedly
realizing that this disbarment complaint arose out of a
misunderstanding
and misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is no longer interested
in
pursuing the case. This motion was not acted upon by the IBP.chanrobles virtual law library
In her Report and Recommendation
dated 30 September 2003, IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline Milagros V.
San Juan found that the complainant failed to substantiate the charges
of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. However, she found the
respondent
guilty of the charge of cooperating in the illegal practice of law by
Felicisimo
R. Tenorio, Jr., in violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility based on the following
evidence:
(1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office, which lists
Felicisimo
R. Tenorio, Jr., as a senior partner; (2) the Sagip Communication
Radio Group identification card of “Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.,”
signed by respondent as Chairperson; (3) and the Order dated 18
June
1997 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos.
20729
– 20734, wherein Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., entered his
appearance
as counsel and even moved for the provisional dismissal of the
cases
for failure of the private complainants to appear and for lack of
interest
to prosecute the said cases. Thus, Commissioner San Juan
recommended
that the respondent be reprimanded.cralaw:red
In its Resolution No.
XVI-2003-228 dated 25 October 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner
San Juan. The modification consisted in increasing the penalty
from
reprimand to suspension from the practice of law for six months with a
warning that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
We agree with the findings
and conclusion of Commissioner San Juan as approved and adopted with
modification
by the Board of Governors of the IBP.cralaw:red
At the outset, we find
that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to Withdraw
Complaint
filed by complainant Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[16]
we declared:
The
affidavit
of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant
does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of
suspension
or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the
facts
borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct
has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of
disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in
any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
respondent
lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken
and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken
for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration
of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to
answer
to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The
complainant
or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's
alleged
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration
of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the
respondent
may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or
his withdrawal of the charges.
Hence, notwithstanding
the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this disbarment case should proceed
accordingly.chanrobles virtual law library
The IBP correctly found
that the charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct were not
substantiated.
In disbarment proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving
his
case by convincing evidence.[17]
With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the charge of
malpractice
or other gross misconduct in office, the respondent is not yet
convicted
thereof. In Gerona vs. Datingaling,[18]
we held that when the criminal prosecution based on the same act
charged
is still pending in court, any administrative disciplinary proceedings
for the same act must await the outcome of the criminal case to avoid
contradictory
findings.cralaw:red
We, however, affirm
the IBP’s finding that the respondent is guilty of assisting in the
unauthorized
practice of law. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to
misrepresent
himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9
and Rule 9.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which read as follows:
Canon 9 – A
lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice
of law.
Rule 9.01 – A
lawyer
shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any
task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing.
The term “practice of
law”
implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as
a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration
of his services. Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown
by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying oneself as
attorney,
appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating
oneself
as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.[19]
Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.
In this case, Felicisimo
R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds himself out as
one.
His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and aided him in the
unauthorized
practice of the legal profession.chanrobles virtual law library
At the hearing, the
respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office
listed
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A. Panghulan, and Maricris D.
Battung
as senior partners. She admitted that the first two are not
lawyers
but paralegals. They are listed in the letterhead of her law
office
as senior partners because they have investments in her law office.[20]
That is a blatant misrepresentation.cralaw:red
The Sagip Communication
Radio Group identification card is another proof that the respondent
assisted
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in misrepresenting to the public that he is
a lawyer. Notably, the identification card stating that he is
“Atty.
Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr.,” bears the signature of the respondent as
Chairperson
of the Group.cralaw:red
The lawyer’s duty to
prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized
practice
of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy
requires
that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
qualified
in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the
lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if
he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional
conduct.
The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the
bar
from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law
and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It
devolves
upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the
canons
and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional
services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the
unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the
law
makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to
aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.[21]chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, for culpable
violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, respondent ATTY. ANA LUZ B.
CRISTAL-TENORIO
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS
effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Resolution
be attached to respondent Cristal-Tenorio’s record as attorney in this
Court and furnished to the IBP and the Office of the Court
Administrator
for circulation to all courts.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban,
Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, 19.
[2]
Id., 9.
[3]
Id., 10.
[4]
Id., 5.
[5]
Id., 6.
[6]
Id., 7.
[7]
Id., 8.
[8]
Id., 36.
[9]
Rollo, 37.
[10]
Id., 38.
[11]
Rollo, 130.
[12]
Id., 104.
[13]
Id., 106.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
TSN, 30 October 2000, 1-66.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
TSN, 30 October 2000, 1-66.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Adm. Case No. 2884, 349 Phil. 7, 15-16 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Adarne v. Aldaba, Adm. Case No. 801, 27 June 1978, 83 SCRA 734.
[18]
Adm. Case No. 4801, 27 February 2003, 398 SCRA 148.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
See Ruben E. Agpalo, The Code of Professional
Responsibility
for Lawyers, 75 (1st ed. 1991) (hereafter Agpalo).
[20]
TSN, 30 October 2000, 52.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Agpalo, 69, 78. |