VICENTE L. LIM, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO G. ANTONIO, RESPONDENT.

In a verified letter dated October 20, 1968 addressed to this Court complainant
Vicente L. Lim prayed for the disbarment of the respondent, Francisco G.
Antonio, on the ground that he is a Chinese citizen and therefore disqualified
to be a member of the Bar.

In his answer to the complaint respondent denied the material
averments thereof and alleged specifically that he and his parents were
Filipino citizens, and that the complaint filed by complainant was motivated by
personal revenge, he (the respondent) having been instrumental in the filing
against said complainant of a number of criminal and civil actions at that time
still pending in court.

Issues having been joined, the case was referred to the Office of
the Solicitor General and thereafter Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G.
Ibarra was commissioned to conduct the investigation.  In the course of the hearings held, both
parties presented their respective evidence, and on the basis thereof the
Office of the Solicitor General filed, under date of August 12, 1971, the
corresponding report recommending “that the herein complaint of Vicente L.
Lim to disqualify the respondent, Atty. Francisco G. Antonio, from the practice
of law be dismissed.”

Discussing the evidences submitted by the parties, the pertinent
portion of the report of the Solicitor General says the following:

“One of the qualifications of an applicant for admission to
the Philippine Bar is that he must be a citizen the Philippines
(Section 2, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court).

Of the above evidence introduced by the complainant to support his
theory that respondent is not a Filipino citizen hut a Chinese national, the
following may be considered:

(a)   
The statements in the marriage certificate
(Exhibit “A”) that respondent’s father (Jose Antonio), his
(respondent’s) paternal grandfather (Efren Antonio),
his paternal grandmother (Ong Pun) and his maternal
grandfather (Santiago Tan Garcia) are Chinese;

(b)   
The testimony of Lorenzo Reyes that according to
Efren Antonio or Lim Samson, the latter has three
brothers named Hesing Lim, Hoc Kim Lim, and Cicero
Lim and that said brothers came from China and that Lim Samson had a wife who
bore him children one of whom is Jose Lim Antonio, the father of respondent;

(c)   
The testimony of Celerina
Ramirez that Samson Lim is a Chinese;

(d)   
Certification of the Municipal Treasurer of Mobo, Masbate (Exhibit
“A-Deposition”) that according to the record of his office, Lim Sing
Kim (alias Cicero) is a duly registered alien (Chinese) per ACR No. A-127777
dated January 13, 1951 and
ACR No. C-024963 dated March 1, 1963.

Regarding Exhibit “A”, the marriage certificate,
as distinguished from a marriage contract, it is not of itself the
primary evidence of the celebration of the marriage but the marriage contract
from which the entries contained in the marriage certificate are taken.  The civil marriage contract executed on May
7, 1933 in Masbate, Masbate,
which was supposed to be the origin of Exhibit “A”, is not available
in the Office of the Civil Registrar of that town due to its destruction during
the Japanese occupation (Exhibit “A-3”); neither does any information
about such marriage contract existent in the Bureau of Records Management
(Exhibit “A-4”).

On the other hand, the church marriage contract which was
subsequently performed on May 9, 1936, also between the parents of the respondent
(Exhibit “5”), states that the nationality of said parents, as well
as that of his paternal grandfather, is Filipino.  Likewise, his birth certificate shows that
his parents are citizens of the Philippines
(Exhibits “1”, “1-A-1” and “1-A-2”).  The testimonies of the respondent himself and
of former Civil Registrar of Masbate, Masbate Andres Teodoro, affirm
that the parents of the respondent are Filipinos (Exhibit “1-B”).
There is no evidence of record that the respondent, his parents, his paternal
grandfather, and his brother and sisters are or have been registered as
aliens.  All these and the circumstances
taken together that the respondent and his parents are voters without their
citizenship being questioned; that respondent is a Certified Public Accountant
to which profession only Filipinos are qualified and his Filipino citizenship
has never been objected to by the authorities; that his father was admitted
into the Philippines in April, 1923 as “Son of P.I. cit.”; that his
brother and two sisters are professionals, are supportive of respondent’s claim
to Philippine citizenship, despite the rules in this jurisdiction that:

“While baptismal and marriage certificates may be considered
documents, they are evidence only to prove the administration of the sacraments
on the dates therein specified — which in this case were the baptism and
marriage, respectively, of Leoncio Chan — but not
the veracity of the statements or declarations made therein with respect to his
kinsfolk and/or citizenship.” (Paa vs. Chan,
L-25949, Oct. 31, 1967)

and
that:

“The exercise by a person of the rights and/or privileges that
are granted only to Filipino citizens is not conclusive proof that he or she is
a Filipino citizen.” (Id.)

It may be mentioned that the evidence for
the respondent already enumerated does not depend solely upon the entries in
the church marriage contract or in the birth certificate.

With respect to the testimony of Lorenzo Reyes that Efren Antonio or Lim Samson, as well as the latter’s
alleged three brothers (Hesing Lim, Hoc King Lim and
Cicero Lim) is hearsay, the same having been supposedly mentioned to him only
by Lim Samson who should have been but was not placed on the stand to testify.

Regarding the testimony of Celerina
Ramirez to the effect that Lim Samson is a Chinese, it is a mere
conclusion.  No authentic basis has been
established therefor.

With reference to Exhibit “A-Deposition”, the mere fact
that Lim Sing Kim alias Cicero has registered himself as a Chinese national is
not competent evidence, much less a conclusive one, of the citizenship of Efren Antonio, supposing that the two are brothers, for
Cicero, through ignorance or error, might have caused his registration as an
alien, while Efren Antonio might have correctly abstained
from registering as a Chinese.  The act
or declaration of a person does not bind another.  Besides, there is the testimony of the
respondent himself that Cicero is not related to him, meaning that the imputed
relationship of brothers between Cicero and Efren Antonio
(respondent’s paternal grandfather) is not true, which relationship should have
been established in the first place by more weighty evidence.”

“x       x          x.

“The assertion that Exhibit “5” is not reliable it
being contradicted by the certificate of marriage (Annex “A” of
complainant’s memorandum) is unsound.  In
the first place, it cannot legally be considered for the complainant because it
has not been properly offered during the trial (Sec. 35, Rule 132, Revised
Rules of Court; De Castro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 75 Phil. 824).  Secondly, the statement of complainant that
Exhibit “5” is contradicted by Annex “A” is
inaccurate.  Annex “A” reads in
part:

“CERTIFICATE
OF MARRIAGE

This is to certify that:

JOSE
ANTONIO LIM      and      ANGELITA TAN CLEMENTE

Age
(not stated)                         (not
stated)

Native
of Mobo, Masbate            Mobo,
Masbate

Father
Efren Antonio Lim           Santiago
Tan Clemente

Mother
Ong Tuan                       Margarita Garcia

were united in

HOLY
MATRIMONY

according to the
Rites of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the laws of the country on the 9th
day of May, 1936 by the Rev. Fr. Felix Ragos
being the sponsors of the ceremony:  Jose
Caragan and Enqracia
de  Caragan
as appears in the Register of Marriages of this Parish Book No. 2 (old)  Page 150 Line 2.”

This certificate which was made by filling
out a printed form does not contain an item for the citizenship of the
contracting parties and their parents. 
Hence, it does not and cannot contradict Exhibit “5”.  The church marriage contract itself should
have been presented since the form for a marriage contract contains the
required statement of citizenship. 
Thirdly, if anything, Annex “A” only
confirms and corroborates the celebration of the church marriage between the
parents of respondent.

Lastly, complainant invokes two opinions of the Secretary of
Justice, namely, the 2nd Indorsement dated September 10, 1956, and the 2nd Indorsement dated December
29, 1956, wherein it was held that a landing certificate of
residence is not competent proof of citizenship.  It is respectfully submitted that those
opinions are not applicable or controlling in this case for the reasons that:
First, the persons involved in the cases cited were registered as aliens at the
time the opinions were sought.  In the
instant case, the respondent is not and was never a registered alien.  Second, in the two cases mentioned, the claim
for Philippine citizenship was based chiefly on their landing certificates of
residence, wherein each is described as “son of P.I. citizen” or
“son of Doroteo Roselba,
P.I. citizen,” as the case may be. 
In the present case, respondent does not rely only on his landing
certificate because he has none, being native born, although his father’s entry
into the Philippines
is evidenced by a landing certificate dated April, 1923 (Exhibit “6”)
as “son of P.I. citizen”. 
Respondent avers that he is a natural born Filipino saying that his father
and mother as well as his paternal grandfather are Filipinos.  Like him, the latter three persons have not
been proved by the complainant to have been registered as aliens at any time
before and now.  It is logical to assume,
therefore, that Efren Antonio, respondent’s paternal
grandfather, although he might be of Chinese descent, might have been a citizen
of the Philippines
at the time of the adoption of its Constitution on May 14, 1935. 
There is no evidence against this. 
If this be so, then his son, Jose Antonio, was born a Filipino, and the
latter’s son, the respondent, also a natural born Filipino.”

On the basis of the above, the Office of the Solicitor General
drew the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove clearly and
convincingly that the respondent is not a Filipino citizen and therefore made
the corresponding recommendation mentioned heretofore.

In the light of the evidence of record, We
are constrained to agree with the finding and recommendation just
mentioned.  Considering the serious
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, We have
consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify
the imposition of either penalty (De Guzman vs. Tadeo,
68 Phil. 554).  More so in the instant
case where it has been clearly established that complainant’s motives are not
beyond suspicion.  The evidence of record
shows that the respondent was instrumental in the filing of Criminal Cases Nos.
3681 and 91293, the first for perjury filed in the Municipal Court of Masbate, Masbate,
and the second for falsification of a public and/or official document filed in
the Court of First Instance of Manila, against said complainant.

WHEREFORE, the complaint filed against respondent is
hereby dismissed, without prejudice to any action that the State may deem
justified to take in connection with the questioned citizenship of said
respondent.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.