TEODORO I. CHAVEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA, RESPONDENT.

Chavez versus Viola

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment, or for such other penalty as the Court deems proper, brought by Teodoro Chavez against Attorney Escolastico Viola, a member of the Philippine Bar. Chavez asks that Viola be disciplined for gross misconduct, because Viola signed and filed, in a land registration case, an application alleging that his clients owned a parcel of foreshore land, when he had earlier alleged in a complaint that the very same clients were only lessees of that same land. The case matters because it fixes the lawyer's duty of candor toward the courts, and it shows that a lawyer cannot escape liability for a false pleading simply because another lawyer began the case and he merely continued it.

Procedural History

The case began as an original letter-complaint addressed directly to the Supreme Court, dated the ninth of May 1990. The Court referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. Viola filed an answer, the complainant filed a reply, and Viola later filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court also forwarded to the Solicitor General. After investigation, the Solicitor General submitted his report, finding that Viola had knowingly made a false statement to the court in the land registration case. The case then came before the Supreme Court en banc for decision, and the Court rendered judgment suspending Viola from the practice of law.

Facts

Sometime in 1966, the Alvendia family engaged Viola as counsel in a civil case filed with the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan against Teodoro Chavez and others. In the complaint, Viola alleged on behalf of the Alvendias that they were holders of foreshore lease applications and that lease contracts had been executed in their favor by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. He prayed that his clients be declared bona fide lessees of the land in controversy. That complaint was dismissed in October 1969 for non-appearance of the plaintiffs.

Unknown to the pleadings, Congress had passed Republic Act Number 470 on the eighteenth of June 1966, withdrawing the foreshore fronting Manila Bay along Bulacan from sale or settlement and reserving it for communal fishing ground purposes. The land occupied by the Alvendias was part of that reservation.

On the eighth of November 1977, Viola filed, on behalf of the Alvendias, an Amended Application for Original Registration of Title in a land registration case before the same court. In that application he alleged that the Alvendias were the owners of the land, having acquired it by sale from one Teresita Vistan sometime in 1929. Chavez then complained that Viola, knowing his clients were mere lessees, had willingly aided in the prosecution of a false and unlawful application for registration. Viola answered that the application had been begun by another lawyer, Attorney Montesclaro, that he merely took over when that lawyer withdrew, that he believed his clients had the right to apply, and that he had verified the matter with the Bureau of Lands. He offered no explanation for the contradiction between his two pleadings.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Viola is guilty of gross misconduct for knowingly making a false statement to the court, having alleged in one pleading that his clients were lessees and in a later pleading that the same clients were owners of the same land.
• Whether or not his claim of good faith, that he merely continued a case begun by another lawyer and relied on the assurance of the Bureau of Lands, exculpates him from liability.

Applicable Provisions

The Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 22, as cited in the decision, provides:

The conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness.

This is the standard the Court measures Viola against, and it is the canon he is found to have violated, now carried into the Code of Professional Responsibility as Canon 10.

The decision also recalls the lawyer's oath, that he swears to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, and the Court treats this sworn duty as the source of the obligation Viola breached.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Viola did commit a falsehood. He alleged in an earlier pleading that his clients were merely lessees, and in a later pleading that the same clients were owners of the same property. One of those pleadings must have been false, and it matters not which one. What matters is that a lawyer who had sworn to do no falsehood before the courts did commit one.

On the second issue, the Court rejected his excuses as hollow. It was incumbent upon him to explain how he could plead two incompatible things, and he offered no explanation beyond saying that he had not originated but merely continued the registration proceedings and that he believed his clients were entitled to apply. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General and the complainant that these excuses do not exculpate him. The Court stressed that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, and that a lawyer's first duty is not to his clients but to the courts, for lawyers are above all officers of the court. In his apparent zeal to secure title for his clients, Viola disregarded his overriding duty to the court and to the law itself.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes candor and fairness to the courts, and this duty is not a matter of choice but of obligation. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State on those who possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law, and one of those qualifications is honesty and candor. A lawyer's first duty is not to the client but to the court; he is above all an officer of the court sworn to assist it in rendering justice, and only secondarily an advocate of his client's exclusive interests. He is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

When a lawyer asserts in one pleading that his clients are lessees and in a later pleading that the same clients are owners of the same land, one of those pleadings must be false, and it matters not which one. The lawyer bears the burden of explaining the contradiction, and the fact that another lawyer began the case and he merely continued it is no defense. Neither is a belief in his client's cause, however sincere, an excuse for disregarding the duty owed to the court.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Viola guilty of committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and suspended him from the practice of law for five months, with a warning that a repetition will bring a more severe penalty, and ordered that a copy of the resolution be spread on his personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that a lawyer's first duty is not to his clients but to the courts, and he swears to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. Examiners use this case on the duty of candor, on inconsistent pleadings by the same counsel, and on the defense of good faith or reliance on a predecessor lawyer, which this case squarely rejects.