OCA CIRCULAR NO. 43-2004, March 19, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder it the Decision of the First Division dated December 11, 2003
in Administrative Case No. 5858, to wit:

“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.

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-18G60 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.

On November 9,1999, complainant filed a verified complaint
against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (EBP-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.

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 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, m 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 dapatmamatay 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 documents 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.

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.

Respondent admitted having represented Erlinda R. Santos- Crawford in Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment, entitled ‘Erlindo 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.3. 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.

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]

The Board of Governors, in Resolution No. CBD Case No. 99-670, modified the recommendation, thus:

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]

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]

In essence, complaint 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]

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.

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.

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.

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 required 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]

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 constituted conflict
of interest.^[20]

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.

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.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the decision was received by respondent on February 2, 2004, as shown by Registry Return Receipt No. 1382.

__19__March 2004.

 ^[2]
Rollo,pp. 18-20.

 ^[3] Id., p. 12.

 ^[4] The September 20,
1999 Certifications of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BIB)
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:

ROMEO R. SANTOS, Control No. 092019990570769B, born on September
12, 1929, an American Citizen using Passport No. 151582510, who arrived
in the Philippines or, August 12, 1994 and left for Los Angeles on August 18, 1994, &, came back to the Philippines on August 23, 1995; 4

ALICIA SANTOS SIROTA, Control No. 09201999G530766B, born on June
19, 195 1, an American Citizen using U.S, Passport No. 034056327 who
left the Philippines for Los Angeles on August 30,1994; 4

ARTURO R. SANTOS, Control No. 09201999057077OB, 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;^[4]

ERLINDA SANTOS SALVIQ, 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;^[4] and

FELOMTNO R, SANTOS, JR., Control No. 092019990570771B, born on
July 31,1 936, 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.^[4]

 ^[5] The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitimate, except in cases expressly specified by law.

Neither can he impose upon the same any burden,e encumberance, condition, or substitution of any kind whatsoever.

 ^[6] Rollo,P,431.

 ^[7] Id., p. 463.

 ^[8] Deed of Sales, Rollo, p. 191.

 ^[9]
Rollo, pp. 345-349.

 ^[10]
Id.,.pp. 350-356.

 ^[11] Id., p. 281.

 ^[12] Id., p. 261.

 ^[13] Id., p. 282.

 ^[14] Alitagtag v. Garcia, A.C. No. 4738, 10 June 2003.

 ^[15] Spouses Whitsonv, Atienza, A.C. No, 5535, 28 August 2003.

 ^[16] Loyola, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Ho. 115734, 23 February 2000.

 ^[17] Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

Admissions of a party.-The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

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.

 ^[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.

 ^[19] Homilla and Ricafort v. Salunat, AC. No, 5804, 1 July 2003.

 ^[20] Rollo, p. 355.