GEORGE MARTIN AND VICTORIANA MARTIN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. JUAN MORENO AND EULALIO VENTURA, RESPONDENTS.

In a verified complaint, the spouses George and Victoriana Martin sought
the suspension of Juan Moreno and Eulalio Ventura as members of the
Philippine Bar. They alleged that the two respondents had conspired to
defraud them of compensation due their son Virgilio who died of
tuberculosis in the course of his employment as a driver for BLU-CAR
Taxi.

The complaint was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

The comprehensive report of the Solicitor General states, among other
things, that the deceased Virgilio Martin was not actually the son of
the complainants; that they were but his guardians and hence not
entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that because
of such fact the complainants requested Atty. Juan Moreno to enter into
an ami­cable settlement with BLU-CAR Taxi; that the settlement was
embodied in a Motion to Dismiss which was prepared by Atty. Moreno; that
the settlement was for the payment of P2,000.00 to the spouses but the
Motion to Dismiss also stated that Virgilio had received from BLU-CAR
Taxi during his lifetime the amount of P4,000.00 so that the dismissal
would be with prejudice; and that the Motion to Dismiss was explained to
the spouses by Atty. Eulalio Ventura, counsel for BLU-CAR Taxi who gave
them a check for P2,000.00.

The complaining spouses in effect accuse Attorney Moreno of pocketing
the P4,000.00 mentioned in the Motion to Dismiss and both Attorneys
Moreno and Ventura of pocketing part of the P2,000.00 settlement.
However, the Solicitor General states:

“It is admitted that some amount of money was received on April
26, 1973, when said Motion to Dismiss was signed by complainants George
Martin and Victoriana Martin for the death of Virgilio Martin (pp.
23-24, 27, tsn., March 9, 1976). However, complainant Victoriana Martin
claims she actually received only P750.00 (p. 24, tsn., March 9, 1976),
while Atty. Eulalio Ventura claims that P2,000.00 was paid to
complainant (pp. 91-92, tsn., March 30, 1976). Atty. Juan Moreno also
claims P2,000.00 was paid to complainant (pp. 7, 15-16, tsn., April 27,
1976; p. 3, Atty. Moreno’s Memorandum). Considering that the sworn
motion to dismiss signed by complainant, which was translated to her and
George Martin before they signed it, states that complainant received
P2,000.00 (Exh. E, p. 5, rec.; p. 89 tsn., March 30, 1976), the fact
that seems to have been established is that P2,000.00 was paid to
complainant.

“Complainants cannot charge that the late Virgilio Martin did not
receive the other amount of P4,000.00 which Atty. Moreno allegedly
pocketed as his own after receiving the same from the Blu-Car Taxi,
because there is no competent evidence to prove this charge. Virgilio
is now dead. Apart from complainant’s denial, there is no other
evidence to show that Atty. Moreno received the P4,000.00 from the
Blu-Car Taxi and failed to deliver the same to the late Virgilio Martin.
The records of the Blu-Car Taxi could have been presented if there is
truth that Atty. Moreno received the same, but no such evidence was
presented. Atty. Moreno’s claim that the P4,000.00 was never paid to
him (p. 22, rec.) should be sustained.” (Report, pp. 12- 13.)

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Solicitor General has accused Atty.
Moreno of knowingly making a false statement in the Motion to Dismiss,
thus:

“2. That on April 26, 1973, in Mandaluyong, Rizal, he filed a
sworn Motion to Dismiss with the Rizal Provincial Office, Workmen’s
Compensation Unit, Mandaluyong, Rizal, stating that Virgilio Martin
during his lifetime received P4,000.00 from the BLU-CAR TAXI as illness
compensation benefits, although in truth and in fact as he was fully
aware of, no such amount was paid to Virgilio Martin (Exh. E, p. 6, rec;
Exh. B, p. 23, rec.);

“3. That such utterance of falsehood vio­lates the lawyer’s oath.” (Rollo, p. 62.)

Required to file an answer to the complaint, Moreno did admit the
falsification but explained that he had to do it for legal and technical
reasons. He averred that:

“x x x In the instant case, the employer, for humanitarian
purposes, agreed to pay the claimants P2,000.00, to which compro­mise
the claimants agreed. A mere motion to dismiss the claim based on the
payment of this P2,000.00 would not be sufficient under the law.

‘x x x such agreement in order to be valid, shall provide, at least,
the same amount of compensation as that prescribed by this Act x x x.’
(Sec. 29, Workmen’s Compensation Act).

In order to fill the gap, the parties herein the employer and the
claimants, as duly approved by the Commission, had to devise a procedure
by making it appear that the difference of P4,000.00 was already paid
in advance. So P4,000.00 plus P2,000.00 makes up P6,000.00 which amount
is the maximum the employer would be liable on the assumption that the
claim is compensable.” (Rollo, p. 68.)

Moreno pleads for leniency thus:

“Yes, Your Honors with deep regret and repentance I admit, I have
committed a mistake, which mistake, however, is seemingly sanctioned by
law, if we are to go deep into the spirit of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended, and for which reason, I humbly implore the forgiveness
of this Highest Tribunal.” (Id., p. 69.)

Moreno’s ready admission of the falsification coupled with his
explanation and plea for forgiveness incline Us not to be severe in
dealing with him. Moreover, his act did not cause material damage to
anyone.

WHEREFORE, respondent Juan Moreno is hereby suspended from the practice
of the law for one (1) month, severely censured and warned that a
repetition of the offense of falsification shall be visited with a more
drastic punishment.

Respondent Eulalio Ventura is exonerated.
SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., (Chairman), see dissenting opinion.

---

DISSENTING OPINION

MAKASIAR, J.:

Moreno’s claim that he did it in good faith and for humanitarian reasons, is incredible; because –

1. the compromise for P2,000.00 – less than the P6,000.00 allowed by law – is void as against public policy;

2. Only P730.00 was received by complaints;

3. Balance of P1,270.00 was kept by Moreno, more than P600.00
allowed as attorney’s fees for a claim of P6,000.00. P200.00 is 10% of
P2,000.00 actually paid by employer; and

4. Obviously, he took advantage of the ignorance of complainants as
to the allowable compensation of P6,000.00. Hence, penalty is too
lenient.