January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.C. No. 6044 : January 25, 2012]
ASUNCION R. ESPINOSA v. ATTY. WENCESLAO C. BARCELONA.
"A.C. No. 6044 - Asuncion R. Espinosa v. Atty. Wenceslao C. Barcelona. - In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, this Court �merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of numbers who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney."[1]
For resolution is a complaint[2] filed before this Court on May 12, 2003 by Asuncion R. Espinosa (Asuncion) against respondent Atty. Wenceslao C. Barcelona (respondent) for allegedly filing a Petition[3] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, notwithstanding his suspension from the practice of law and for forum shopping.
It appears that in a Resolution[4] dated April 19, 2002 in A.C. No. 5668, entitled "Gil T. Aquino v. Atty. Wenceslao C. Barcelona", this Court found the same respondent to have misrepresented to the therein complainant that he could secure the restructuring of the latter's loan with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) through his connection with a certain Gonzalo S. Mericullo, supposedly a legal assistant at said bank. Through such pretense, respondent successfully obtained P60,000.00 from the complainant. It turned out, however, that there was no such person employed at PNB and the property of the complainant was foreclosed. This Court, affirming the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, found respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar. Accordingly, he was "SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months, effective immediately."[5]
Despite such suspension, respondent, as counsel for Felipe Palon, Juan Manuel, Luciano de la Cruz and Delfin de la Cruz, filed on May 22, 2002 a petition[6] for injunction, certiorari and prohibition against the Nueva Ecija Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Provincial Sheriff and the herein complainant Asuncion before the RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija which was docketed as Civil Case No. 2325.
Complainant alleged that in the hearing before the RTC, the presiding judge asked respondent if he was aware of his suspension when he filed the said petition. Respondent allegedly responded that he has not received the resolution of suspension at the time he filed the petition. Nevertheless, his pretense was uncovered when he was shown a copy of the Administrative Order of the Office of the Court Administrator which confirmed that he indeed received the said Resolution on May 2, 2002 or 20 days before he filed the petition before the said court.
Respondent did not file his comment to the present complaint despite notice and the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[7]
In his Report and Recommendation,[8] Investigating Commissioner Albert R. Sordan found that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to heed the directives of this Court and the IBP to file his Comment; for engaging in the practice of law during his suspension and for forum shopping.[9] The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years.
In a Resolution[10] dated April 12, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent engaged in the private practice of law during the period of his six month suspension and forum shopping." The IBP Board of Governors thus approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that the suspension be for a period of three years.
It appears, however, that during the pendency of the instant complaint, respondent was the subject of a yet another administrative complaint in A.C. No. 6084 entitled "Felicitas Berbano v. Atty. Wenceslao Barcelona".[11] In this Court's Decision dated September 3, 2003 in the said case, respondent was found to have collected P64,000.00 from the therein complainant by representing to the latter that he could secure the immediate release of the complainant's relative through his alleged connection with a Supreme Court Justice.[12] With the earlier findings and ruling against respondent in A.C. No. 5668,[13] this Court observed that "[r]espondent has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting to clients that he has the proper connections to secure the relief they seek x x x."[14] Thus, he was found guilty of gross misconduct and DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name was ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.[15]
Considering that this Court has already determined the respondent to be worthy of the office of attorney in the afore-cited case, the instant complaint has consequently been rendered moot. This Court cannot further discipline a disbarred respondent from the practice of law when his name has already been purged from the Roll. For indeed, as held in Yuhico v. Gutierrez,[16] we do not have double or multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence."cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the instant complaint against Atty. Wenceslao C. Barcelona is declared moot in view of his disbarment in A.C. No. 6084.
This case is accordingly declared CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Let copies hereof be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the Office of the President; the Department of Justice; the Philippines Judges Association; and all courts of the land, for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1, 11 (1999).[2] Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[3] Id. at 6-16.
[4] 431 Phil. 59 (2002).
[5] Id. at 63. The dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. WENCESLAO BARCELONA is found GUILTY of gross dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. He is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective immediately. Further, he is also ordered to account for the amount of P60,000.00 entrusted to him by his client, with the obligation to return the entire amount, or so much thereof remaining, to complainant.
SO ORDERED.
[6] Supra note 3.
[7] See Minute Resolution dated June 16, 2008, rollo, p. 55.
[8] Id. at 78-92.
[9] Id. at 91-92.
[10] Id. at 78.
[11] 457 Phil. 331, 344 (2003).
[12] Id.
[13] Aquino v. Atty. Barcelona, supra note 4.
[14] Berbano v. Atty. Barcelona, supra note 11.
[15] Id. at 346. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, for gross misconduct, respondent Wenceslao C. Barcelona is DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is further directed to return to complainant Felicitas Berbano the amount of Sixty Four Thousand Pesos (P64,000.00) within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision.
This Decision shall take effect immediately.
Let copies hereof be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent�s personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the Office of the President; the Department of Justice; the Philippines Judges Association; and all courts of the land for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
[16] A.C No. 8391, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA 684, 689.