HERMINIO R. NORIEGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EMMANUEL R. SISON, RESPONDENT.

This is a complaint for disbarment filed on June 3, 1981 by Herminio
R. Noriega against Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison (admitted
to the Bar on March 31, 1976)
on the ground of malpractice through gross misrepresentation and falsification.

Complainant Noriega alleges that respondent Sison
is a regular and permanent employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) as a Hearing Officer and as such,
“is mandated to observe strictly the civil service rules and regulations,
more particularly x x x the
prohibition of government employees to practice their professions”; that to circumvent the prohibition and
to evade the law, respondent assumed a different name, fal­sified his identity
and represented himself to be one “Atty. Manuel Sison“,
with offices at No. 605 EDSA, Cubao, Quezon City, “at the times that he will handle private
cases”; that “Manuel Sison” is not
listed as a member
of the Bar in the records of the Supreme Court; that under his said assumed
name, respondent is representing one Juan Sacquing,
the defendant in Case No. E-01978 before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court of Manila, sub­mitting pleadings therein signed by him (respondent) under his
assumed name, despite his full knowledge that “Manuel Sison”
is not a member of the Bar and that his acts in doing so are illegal and
unlawful.^[1]
Xerox copies of pertinent documents, pleadings, orders and notices are annexed to the complaint to support the material
allega­tions therein.

As required, respondent
filed his Answer on August 20, 1981. He attached thereto a copy of the written authorization given by Julio A. Sulit,
Jr., Associate Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, for him to appear as counsel of Juan Sacquing, a close family friend, in the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) of Manila. Respondent alleges that he never held
himself out to the public as a practicing lawyer; that he provided legal
services to Sacquing in view of close family
friendship and for free; that he never re­presented himself deliberately and
intentionally as “Atty. Manuel Sison” in
the Manila JDRC where, in the early stages of his appearance, he always signed
the minutes as “Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison“,
and in one instance, he even made the necessary correction when the court staff
wrote his name as “Atty. Manuel Sison“; that due to the “inept and careless work
of the clerical staff of the JDRC”, notices were sent to “Atty.
Manuel Sison” at 605 EDSA, Cubao,
Quezon City, where respondent’s parents conduct a printing office and establishment, which notices were honored by the personnel of
said office as respondent’s family has called respondent by the nickname
“Manuel”; that respondent did not feel any necessity to correct this
error of the JDRC since he “could use his nickname ‘Manuel’ interchangeably with
his original true name as a formal name,
and its use was not done for a
fraudulent purpose nor to misrepresent”; and, that this administrative case
is only one of the nu­merous baseless complaints brought by complainant
against respondent, the former being a disgruntled loser in an injunction case in the SEC heard before respondent
as Hearing
Officer.

In
resolving this disbarment case, We must initially emphasize the degree of integrity
and respectability at­tached to the law profession. There is no denying that the profession of
an attorney is required after a long and laborious study. By years of patience,
zeal and ability, the attorney acquires a fixed means of support for
himself and his family. This is not to say, however, that the emphasis is on the pecuniary value of this profession but rather on the social
prestige and intellectual standing necessarily arising from and attached to the
same by reason of the fact that every attorney is deemed an officer of the court.

The importance of the
dual aspects of the legal profession has been wisely put by Chief Justice
Marshall of the United States Court when he said:

“On one hand, the profession of an Atty. is of
great, importance to an indi­vidual and the prosperity of his life may depend
on its exercise. The right to exercise it
ought not to be lightly or capri­ciously taken from him. On the other hand, it is extremely desirable that the respec­tability
of the Bar should be maintained and that its harmony with the bench should be
preserved. For these objects, some controlling power, some discretion ought to
be exercised with great moderation and judgment, but it must be
exer­cised.”^[2]

The purpose of
disbarment, therefore, is not meant as a punishment depriving
him of a source of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the administration
of justice by requiring that those who exercise this function should be
competent, honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients may
rightly repose confidence in them.^[3]

In disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court
to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. Considering the
serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar,
this Court has consis­tently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary
to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.^[4]

This Court has also held
in In re Atty.
Felizarda M. de Guzman^[5] that to be made the basis of suspension or
disbarment, the record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by this Court of
its dis­ciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as well as the
motivation thereof must be clearly demons­trated.
An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges
preferred against him until the contrary
is proved; and as an officer of the court, that he performed his duty in accordance with his oath.

Examining the facts of
this case, We hold that the allegations in the complaint do not warrant
disbarment of the respondent. There is no evidence that the respondent has
committed an act constituting deceit, immoral conduct, violation of his oath as
a lawyer, wilful disobedience of any lawful order of
the court, or corruptly and wilfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.^[6]

There is no violation of the Civil Service rules and regulations
for his appearance as counsel for the defen­dant in the JDRC Case No. E-01978
was with authority given by the Associate Commissioner of SEC, Julio A. Sulit, Jr.

This Court also holds that under the facts complained of
supported by the annexes and the
answer of respondent, likewise sustained by annexes attached thereto and the
reply of the complainant, the accusation that respondent with malice and
deliberate intent to evade the laws, assumed a different name, falsified his
identity and represented himself to be one “ATTY. MANUEL SISON” with
offices at No. 605 EDSA, Cubao, Quezon
City at the times that he will handle private cases, is not meritorious.
Neither is the charge substantiated. The only case referred to is that pending
the JDRC, Case No. E-01978 wherein respondent appeared as counsel for the
defendant. It being an isolated case, the same does not constitute the practice
of law, more so since respondent did not derive any pecuniary gain for his
appear­ance because respondent and defendant therein were close family friends.
Such act of the respondent in going out of his way to aid as counsel to a close
family friend should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of harrassment against respondent.

The ruling in Zeta vs. Malinao (87 SCRA
303) wherein the respondent was dismissed from the service because being a
government employee, he appeared as counsel in a private case, cannot be
applied in the case at bar because the respondent in said Zeta case had appeared as
counsel without permission from his superiors.

Although the complaint alleges violation of civil service rules,
the complainant however states that the basis of his complaint for disbarment
is not the respon­dent’s act of appearing as counsel but the unauthorized use
of another name.^[7]

A perusal of the records however, reveals that whereas there is
indeed a pleading entitled “Objection/Opposition to the Formal Offer of
Evidence” (Annex “C” to the Complaint for Disbarment, which is
signed as “Manuel Sison“, counsel for
defendant, 605 EDSA, Cubao, Quezon
City, p. 7 of the Records), there is, however, no showing that respondent was
thus motivated with bad faith or malice, for otherwise, he would not have
corrected the spelling of his name when the court staff mis-spelled
it in one of the minutes of the proceeding. Moreover, We find no reason or
motive for respondent to conceal his true name when he has already been given
express authority by his superior to act as counsel for Juan Sacquing in the latter’s case pending before the JDRC. And while it may
be true that subsequent errors were made in sending notices to him under the name
“Atty. Manuel Sison,” the errors were
attributable to the JDRC clerical staff and not to the respondent.

At most, this Court would only counsel the respondent to be more
careful and cautious in signing his name so as to avoid unnecessary confusion
as regards his identity.

At this point, We are constrained to examine the motives that
prompted the complainant in filing the present case. An examination of the
records reveals that the com­plainant was a defendant in the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Case No. 1982 filed by the Integrated Livestock
Dealers Inc. and Teofisto Jiao against seven (7)
respondents including the complainant, seeking to oust the complainant and his
co-defendants from acting as officers of the Integrated Livestock Dealers Inc.,
then pending before respondent as Hearing Officer of the SEC, who after trial
decided the case against the herein complainant. From this antecedent fact,
there is cast a grave and serious doubt as to the true motivation of the
complainant in filing the present case, considering further that other adminis­trative
charges were filed by the complainant against res­pondent herein before the
SEC, JDRC, and the Fiscal’s office in Manila.

We hold that complainant’s repeated charges or accu­sations only
indicate his resentment and bitterness in losing the SEC case and not with the
honest and sincere desire and objectives “(1) to compel the attorney to
deal fairly and honestly with his client;” (Strong vs. Munday,
52 N.J. Eq. 833, 21 A. 611) and “(2) to remove
from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities be­longing to the office of an
attorney.” (Ex parte Brounsal,
Cowp. 829; 83 Reprint; 6 C.J., p. 581; see In re de los Angeles Adm. Case No. 225, Sept. 31, 1959, cited in
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 6, p. 242).

In the light of the foregoing, We find no reason or necessity to
refer this complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., on leave.

^[1]
Complaint; Rollo, pp. 1-4.

^[2]
Ex parte Burr
9 Wheat 529.

^[3]
Alcala vs. de Vera, 56
SCRA 30, citing In Re Macdougall.

^[4]
Romulo Santos vs. Alberto M. Dichoso,
84 SCRA 622.

^[5]
Case No. 828, Jan. 21,
1974.

^[6]
Sec. 27, Rule 138.

^[7]
Comment of Complainant, last paragraph, p. 3, which reads: “Respondent
evaded the issue in his Answer; he is not charged for practicing his profession
nor for collecting fees therefor; neither is he
charged for appearing sans office authority to do so. Respondent is
charged for malpractice in representing himself as. Atty. Manuel Sison, which is not his real name before the Manila
Juvenile and Domestic Rela­tions Court and in signing and submitting pleadings
under this assumed name, in violation of the law. What makes this matter worse
is that Manuel Sison is not a member of the Bar (Attorney).”