RUFINA LUY LIM, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, RESPONDENT.

Rufina Luy Lim versus Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Rufina Luy Lim against Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza. Rufina is the surviving spouse of the late Pastor Y. Lim. She accuses the respondent lawyer of violating several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1 on obeying the laws of the land, Canon 5 on keeping abreast of legal developments, Canon 10 on candor and fairness to the court, and Rule 10.01 on falsehood, among others. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a lawyer who takes contradictory positions before the courts, notarizes affidavits he later disowns, and uses abusive language against an opposing party. It is a study in the lawyer's duty of honesty and the consequences of repeated infractions.

Procedural History

Rufina filed the disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The case was assigned to Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. On March 4, 2009, Commissioner Ruiz issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Mendoza liable and recommending suspension from the practice of law for two years. The IBP Board of Governors, on April 16, 2013, passed a Resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation, and suspended Atty. Mendoza for two years for violating Canons 1, 5, and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The case then reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court adopted the findings but increased the penalty, because this was not the respondent's first infraction.

Facts

Pastor Y. Lim died on June 11, 1994. His surviving spouse, Rufina, claimed that during his lifetime Pastor used conjugal funds to organize several dummy corporations, including Skyline International, Inc. and Nell Mart, Inc., using his mistresses and employees as incorporators and stockholders, in order to defeat her claims to the properties. On March 17, 1995, Rufina filed a Joint Petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the settlement of Pastor's estate. Miguel Lim, Pastor's brother, filed a Petition for Intervention dated August 17, 1995, stating under oath that the corporations were dummies and that the persons named as incorporators, stockholders, and officers were mere dummies. That Petition for Intervention was executed before Atty. Mendoza as notary public. He also notarized the affidavits of Teresa T. Lim, Lani G. Wenceslao, Susan Sarcia-Sabado, and Miguel, who all admitted under oath that Pastor created dummy corporations, that the purported stockholders did not pay a single centavo for the shares under their names, and that the affiants did not actually participate in the operations of the companies.

Later, however, Atty. Mendoza, acting as counsel of Skyline, argued that Skyline was the registered owner of several real properties and had every right to protect its interest against Rufina. Rufina also claimed that Atty. Mendoza, acting as Vice-President of Nell Mart, demanded that tenants of lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Numbers 236236 and 236237 vacate the property, claiming Nell Mart owned it, even while knowing Nell Mart was a dummy corporation. She further averred that Atty. Mendoza used intemperate language in his pleadings, particularly when he said that Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" as rentals which were "DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES."

In his Answer, Atty. Mendoza countered that Rufina and Pastor had been separated for more than 26 years by the time Pastor died, and that on May 11, 1972, the couple entered into an Agreement partitioning their conjugal properties. He admitted filing the Petition for Intervention but said it was pre-arranged between Rufina and Miguel. Unfortunately, Miguel and Yao Hiong died before they could testify, so the statements in the Petition for Intervention were mere hearsay. He also pointed out that this was the second complaint Rufina filed against him before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines involving the same issue of ownership of the properties covered by the two Transfer Certificates of Title registered in the name of Nell Mart. He claimed the complaints were retaliation for her losses in other cases.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for making false and contradictory statements in his pleadings.
• Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for asserting that the 1972 Agreement was binding against third persons despite knowing it was improper.
• Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated the rule requiring lawyers to use temperate and respectful language in their pleadings.
• Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated Bar Matter Numbers 1132 and 1922 for failing to indicate his Professional Tax Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime Number, Roll of Attorneys Number, and MCLE compliance in his Position Paper.
• Whether or not the penalty of disbarment, rather than suspension, is proper given that this is not the respondent's first infraction.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

This canon bears on the case because the respondent took contradictory positions before the courts, first affirming the corporations were dummies and later claiming the statements were hearsay.

Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

This rule is the core provision violated, because the respondent signed and notarized documents he later disowned, misleading the court.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

This canon bears on the case because the respondent insisted on the validity of an agreement he himself admitted was improper, showing ignorance or disregard of the law.

Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 5 — A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support the efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

This canon is relevant because the respondent's claim that the 1972 Agreement was binding against third persons shows he failed to keep abreast of legal developments.

The Code of Professional Responsibility also provides:

A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

This provision applies because the respondent imputed derogatory traits to Rufina in his pleadings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01. He drafted and signed the Petition for Intervention averring that the corporations were dummies, and he notarized affidavits saying the affiants were dummies. Yet in his Position Paper before the IBP, he claimed those statements were not his and were mere hearsay. The Court found that his flip-flopping averments betrayed a lack of forthrightness and transparency. As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to act with complete candor and may not resort to deception. The Court stressed that a counsel's signature on a pleading is not an empty formality; it is a positive declaration that he has read the pleading, that there is ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent violated Canon 1. He asserted that the May 11, 1972 Agreement between Rufina and Pastor was improper for notarial act yet binding against third persons. The Court found this showed either ignorance of the law or wanton disregard for the laws of the land, either of which deserves disciplinary sanction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent failed to use temperate and respectful language. In his Comment, he averred that Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" in rent which were "DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES." The Court reminded lawyers that language is rich with expressions that are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the respondent failed to indicate in his Position Paper the required Professional Tax Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime Number, Roll of Attorneys Number, and MCLE compliance, in violation of Bar Matter Numbers 1132 and 1922. These requirements are not vain formalities; they ensure that only those who have satisfied the requisites for legal practice are able to engage in it.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that disbarment, not mere suspension, was proper. This was not the respondent's first infraction. In a prior case, he had been found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 for willful failure to pay a loan and was suspended for one year with a warning. The Court found that his string of offenses betrayed a propensity to ignore, disrespect, and make a mockery of the judicial institution. His violations showed a recalcitrant character, undeserving of the privilege to practice law.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Under Rule 10.01, a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. A counsel's signature on a pleading is a solemn component of legal practice; it is a positive declaration that he has read the pleading, that there is ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. A lawyer who takes contradictory positions before the courts violates this duty and may be disciplined. A lawyer must also obey the laws of the land and keep abreast of legal developments. A lawyer shall not use language that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. Finally, membership in the Bar is a privilege laden with conditions, granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers. Repeated infractions may warrant disbarment rather than suspension.

Disposition

Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza was disbarred from the practice of law for violation of Canons 1, 5, and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his name was ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

Remember This

A lawyer's signature on a pleading is a solemn declaration of truth, and taking contradictory positions before the courts is a violation of the duty of candor that can lead to disbarment. Examiners use this case to test the duty of honesty under Canon 10 and Rule 10.01, the consequences of repeated infractions, and the rule against abusive language in pleadings.