A.C. No. 1947. August 12, 1987
PABLO V. JULIAN AND IRENE BASILIO-JULIAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. AMEURFINA RESPICIO-SALENDA AND BELEN E. TUY, RESPONDENTS.
FELICIANO, J.:
On 12 July 1978,
the spouses Pablo V. Julian and Irene Basilio-Julian
filed a letter-complaint asking that administrative action be taken against
respondents Attorney Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda
and Attorney Belen E. Tuy.
In a Joint Affidavit executed on 19 August 1978, the Julian
spouses allege that early in the evening of 19 December 1976, at their
residence in Laoag City, Ilocos
Norte, Attorney Tuy was at their (i.e., the spouses’)
typewriter drafting a document under which Mr. Julian agreed to transfer his
rights of ownership over his share, comprising 6,780 square meters, in Lot No.
8410 of the Laoag Cadastre in favor of Alpha Motor
Sales & Services, Inc., a company represented by Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes.
After the Deed of Absolute Sale had been completed, the same was
presented for signature to the Julian spouses who however refused to sign the
document, which was conspicuously silent as to the purchase price of the
subject property, until after they had consulted with their lawyer, Attorney Respicio-Salenda.
This prompted a visit to the latter shortly after by the Julian spouses
together with Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes.
The Julian spouses then allege:
“5. That Atty. Respicio-Salenda
assured us that everything was all right despite the absence of a consideration
on the document, so we were prevailed upon to sign said document;
6. That the persons present when Atty. Respicio-Salenda
affixed her signature were ourselves, Wellington Reyes and Atty. Belen E. Tuy; the other alleged witness as shown on the document, Julieta Respicio, was not
present;
7. That after Atty. Respicio-Salenda
signed this document, in which no amount was yet written, Atty. Belen E. Tuy took all the copies, not leaving even a copy to the
notary public, nor to us; at this time the document was not yet docketed;
8. That it was only the following morning in the office of Atty. Respicio-Salenda that the document was docketed by her
secretary, Julieta A. Respicio,
who then affixed her signature despite the fact that she was not present during
the signing;
9. That it was only on December 22, 1976 when we came to know that
the consideration post-inserted on the blank space was “Eighteen Thousand
Pesos (P18,000.00)” instead of Thirty- Six Thousand Pesos (P36,000.00) as
was our actual agreement; the typewritten words and numerals “Eighteen
Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00)” was not typed on our typewriter, as can be
proven if the document would be duly examined by the National Bureau of
Investigation;
10. That the Original Certificate of Title subject of the document
was surreptitiously taken from us on December 22, 1976, without our knowledge
and consent x x x“
Aside from typing the wrong amount in the space left blank for
the consideration for the Julian property, Attorney Tuy
offered in payment a Time Certificate of Deposit with the Philippine Banking
Corporation in the amount of P18,000.00, allegedly contrary to the agreement
that initial payment should be made in cash.
And although the Julian spouses were paid P3,600,00 in cash (supposedly
the first of five yearly installments in payment of the P18,000.00 balance of
the purchase price), Attorney Tuy had allegedly
altered the agreement once more by declaring that, thenceforth, payment of all
succeeding installments would be taken from the yearly interest of P3,600.00
earned by the P18,000.00 placement in the time deposit account.
After several attempts to withdraw the money deposited with the
Philippine Banking Corporation had failed, and after several requests for
payment from Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes had
been refused, the Julian spouses, represented by Attorney Respicio-Salenda,
instituted an action (docketed as Civil Case No. 6444-VI) in Branch VI of the
then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte at Laoag seeking the reformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
On 24 May 1978,
the trial court dismissed the complaint of the Julian spouses. The motion for reconsideration met with a
similar fate.
With respect to these events, the Julian spouses allege:
“11. That a civil case was brought to court mainly on the
ground of the falsity of the typewritten words and numerals “Eighteen
Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00)”;
12. That Atty. Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda was
our counsel in this case (Civil Case No. 6444-VI, CFI, Branch VI, Laoag City) but because of her failure to testify in our
behalf the decision went against us — in fact this was exactly the argument in
the decision as can be found on page 7 of the said decision;
13. That Atty. Respicio-Salenda should not have been our counsel if she
was not aware that the amount of “Eighteen Thousand Pesos
(P18,000.00)” was post-inserted; that the post-insertion was actually her
main issue in her Memorandum for Plaintiffs and in her Motion for
Reconsideration found in the records of the case;
14. That despite the fact
that Atty. Respicio-Salenda, in the said case, was
our lawyer, she did not sign any pleading except the two pleadings above-named;
15. That during every
hearing of the case, Atty. Respicio-Salenda asked for
some amount from us which, she said was to be given to the judge;
16. That when the decision
in the said case went against us, Atty. Respicio-Salenda
told us to prepare the amount of P2,000.00 allegedly to be given again to the
judge should her motion for reconsideration prevail — but this time we did not
give any amount;
17. That these facts
constitute deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office on the part of
Atty. Respicio-Salenda; likewise, there is clearly
deceit and gross misconduct on the part of Atty. Belen E. Tuy;
18. That based on the foregoing, ATTY. AMEURFINA RESPICIO-SALENDA
and ATTY. BELEN E. TUY deserve to be as they should be disbarred;
19. That we are not the only
victims of Atty. Belen E. Tuy and Wellington Reyes in
Laoag City
x x x“
In compliance with the resolution issued by this Court on 20 September 1978 directing the
respondents to file their answer to the complaint, Attorney Respicio-Salenda
filed her Answer on 9 November 1978.2
Attorney Tuy has so far failed to submit a separate
answer despite having been granted four extensions of time, totalling
95 days, to file one. We will return to
Attorney Tuy’s case below; meantime we will deal only
with matters which concern or affect Attorney Respicio-Salenda
alone.
We find no justifiable reason to mete out the sanction prayed for
in the complaint against respondent Attorney Ameurfina
Respicio-Salenda.
The record shows that on the evening of 19 December 1976, the professional advice of
Attorney Respicio-Salenda regarding the Deed of
Absolute Sale was purposely sought by the Julian spouses who, apparently, could
make neither heads nor tails of the stipulations in the said document. Attorney Respicio-Salenda
accordingly scrutinized the Deed of Absolute Sale and, in fact, took the time
to read and explain the contents thereof to the Julian spouses. This was admitted by Mrs. Julian on
cross-examination at the 11 October 1977 hearing conducted in connection with
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 6444-VI.3 Furthermore, the fact that the
space allotted for the purchase price had been left blank was immediately
brought to the attention of the Julian spouses by Attorney Respicio-Salenda,
who then proceeded to ascertain, among other things, the exact amount of the
consideration that her clients had settled on with Attorney Tuy. As testified to by Mrs. Julian:
“q So,
you did not want this agreement that the total of P36,000.00, P18,000.00 or
one-half of it be paid in cash and the other half will be paid in yearly
installment of P3,600.00?
a Yes,
I agreed regarding the P18,000.00 cash and the P3,600.00 yearly for a period of
five years.
q All right, this document marked Exhibit
“B”, only states here that you will be paid P18,000.00 and not
P36,000.00, did you not complain with this term of the document before signing?
a I questioned it,
Your Honor, because the amount does not appear, it is blank.
q So,
where did you sign this document?
a At
the house of Attorney Ameurfina Respicio.
q When
you went to the house of Atty. Ameurfina Respicio, the amount of consideration is not yet there?
a Yes,
Your Honor.
q And
your purpose in going to the house of Attorney Respicio
was to consult her about this document, Exhibit “B”, is it not?
a Yes,
Your Honor.
X X X
q And did she not notice
that the amount of the consideration in the document did not appear in the
document?
a She
noticed that’s why she asked us how much was the consideration we agreed upon.
q And
what did you tell her?
a Our
agreement in the amount of P36,000.00 that is the consideration of our land.
q And
is that all that she asked you after she read the document?
a No,
Your Honor.
q What
else did she ask you?
a She
asked me also regarding the area which was included in the document because
I told them not to include and that was my problem.”
The testimony of Mrs. Julian continues:
“q What
was the area not to be included?
a 780
square meters.
q So,
it was your agreement to sell only 6,000 square meters?
a Yes,
Your Honor.
q After
you made this objection to Attorney Respicio, what
did she advise you?
a Belen
Tuy told me that it will not be my problem, together with Wellington Reyes,
they told me not to worry regarding the
correction of the instrument because she is a lawyer herself and that she will
be responsible in the correction of the
document.
q Now,
you said that the amount of the consideration was not included in this document
when it was prepared and when it was read to you by Attorney Respicio, and now in this Exhibit “B” there is a
written words of the figure P18,000.00, where was this typed, if you know?
a Yes,
Your Honor, in our house.
q When
was this figure or words P18,000.00 typed in this document?
a In
our house, Your Honor.
q I
am asking you when was these words and figure P18,000.00 typed?
a When
they came to deliver the check, that was
December 22, 1976
as well as the cash P3,600.00.
q All
right, did you not say that you signed this deed of sale marked Exhibit
“B” in the house of your lawyer, Atty. Ameurfina
Respicio?
a Yes,
Your Honor.
q And
you signed inspite of the fact that the amount of
consideration was not placed in the document?
a I
should have not signed that document because I have a problem that time but
they promised me to pay me in cash
P18,000.00 and give me P3,600.00 yearly
for five years. x x x”4
Mrs. Julian also revealed:
“q Madam
witness, you stated during the cross-examination that after this document
Exhibit “B” was prepared you were not given copy by the defendants
before going to the house of your lawyer, is that right?
a No,
I was not given a copy.
q But
you stated when you were asked by the court that when this document was
prepared you stated that the amount of P18,000.00 was not there, is that not
right?
a No,
Your Honor, it was the P36,000.00.
q When
for the first time you have known that the amount of P18,00.00 was not there or
that the amount of consideration in that paper was blank?
a Before
I signed and at the time Attorney Respicio read and
she asked me there is no amount indicated.
q And
notwithstanding the blank space in the document you signed the document?
a Yes,
Ma’am, I signed because they promised me to pay me the amount of P36.000.00
and even in the presence of Attorney Respicio. x x x”5
Evidently, the Julian spouses would not have known of the blank space
in the Deed of Absolute Sale had Attorney Respicio-Salenda
not alerted them to this fact. In the
main, what induced and ultimately convinced the Julian spouses into signing the
document, despite its flaws, were the assurances of Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes that the blank would later be
filled up in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions previously
agreed upon by and between them — i.e., the Julian spouses would eventually
receive P36,000.00 for their property, half of which to be paid in cash upon
execution and the other half to be paid in equal installments of P3,600.00 at
the end of each year for the next five years.
The Julian spouses, therefore, cannot place the blame for their
misfortune on Attorney Respicio-Salenda but rather on
their misplaced trust in the promises of Attorney Tuy
and Wellington Reyes.
Furthermore, the alleged erroneous insertion was typed by
Attorney Tuy on to the Deed of Absolute Sale on 22 December 1976 in the Julian
residence. In all likelihood, the
same typewriter must have been used on this occasion as had been used three
days earlier in the preparation of the document. In both instances, it is similarly likely
that the drafting and insertion performed by Attorney Tuy
was done in the presence of either, or both, of the Julian spouses. There is also this statement of Mrs. Julian:
“q Now, it says here in Exhibit “B”
that the consideration is P18,000.00 Philippine Currency, and you stated
according to you that the purchase is P36,000.00?
a The total amount of P36,000.00 is no
longer alleged in the deed of sale because our agreement is that the first
P18,000 be given to us in cash upon execution of the document, and what was
only placed in the document is the balance of P18,000 which was agreed upon
by us that they have to pay us annually on every December of the year in the
amount of P3,600.00. x x x”6
From this statement of Mrs. Julian, it might be inferred that no
error was committed by Attorney Tuy in the insertion
made in the Deed of Absolute Sale. It
might even be inferred that said document, in fact, accurately embodied the
true intentions of the contracting parties, except that Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes had failed to faithfully comply
with their obligations to the Julian spouses under their agreement. These matters are not, however, appropriately
discussed herein as such pertain more to the intrinsic merits of Civil Case No.
6444-VI.
Attorney Respicio-Salenda did what she
could for her clients. She not only took
pains to explain the contents of the Deed of Absolute Sale to the Julian
spouses. She likewise took the trouble
of ascertaining from them their true intentions and expectations regarding the
intended transaction, especially after she discovered that no purchase price
for the Julian property had been indicated in the disputed document. We are inclined to give credence to her
assertion that she did try to dissuade the Julian spouses from signing the Deed
of Absolute Sale, except that the couple had simply been overwhelmed and overtaken
by the solicitations of Attorney Tuy and Wellington
Reyes.
Instead of being faulted for handling Civil Case No. 6444-VI for
the Julian spouses, Attorney Respicio-Salenda should
perhaps be commended for agreeing to take on the same, considering that her
clients were partly to blame for their predicament after they had imprudently
disregarded her advice not to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. Her decision not to take the witness stand at
the trial of Civil Case No. 6444-VI on the ground that she felt that her
testimony would merely be cumulative of what Mrs. Julian had already testified
to earlier is well within her discretionary authority, as counsel for the
Julian spouses. The Julian spouses could
easily have insisted that Attorney Respicio-Salenda
testify in open court; just as easily, they could have replaced her as their
counsel at anytime during the proceedings.
They did neither. Hence, absent
any evidence to the contrary, it may safely be presumed that whatever was done,
or not done, by Attorney Respicio-Salenda in the
prosecution of Civil Case No. 6444-VI was with the consent and conformity of
her clients. Furthermore, the fact that
only two pleadings were prepared and filed by Attorney Respicio-Salenda
in relation to Civil Case No. 6444-VI is in no way an indication that she had
neglected her professional duties to the Julian spouses. The degree and extent of service rendered by
an attorney for a client is best measured in terms other than mere number of
sheets of paper.
We subscribe to Attorney Respicio-Salenda’s
assertion that the money received by her from the Julian spouses was used
merely to pay for her professional fees and to defray the costs of
litigation. The insinuations made by the
Julian spouses that the amounts solicited from them were used and intended to
be used for illegal purposes (i.e., bribery of the judge) are totally unfounded
and do not deserve serious consideration, at least as far as the records of
this case will show.
On the whole, the charges levelled
against Attorney Respicio-Salenda, apart from being
uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by competent evidence of record, we believe,
have been sufficiently refuted by the latter in her Answer.
We take note, however, of Attorney Respicio-Salenda’s
admission that she too signed, as notary, the Deed of Absolute Sale despite the
incompleteness thereof. Admittedly, she
did take the precautions of explaining the contents of the Deed of Absolute
Sale to the Julian spouses and ascertaining from them the exact terms of their
agreement with Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes
before notarizing the same. She should,
however, have awaited the insertion of the purchase price of the subject
property before proceeding to the notarization of the instrument.
WHEREFORE, respondent Attorney Ameurfina
Respicio?Salenda is reprimanded for negligence
in the performance of her duties as notary public with the warning that similar
conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely. The complaint for disbarment is DISMISSED
with respect to respondent Attorney Respicio-Salenda.
Turning once more to Attorney Belen E. Tuy,
who never filed an answer to the complaint for disbarment and who in effect
ignored the Resolution of this Court dated 20 September 1978 requiring her to file an answer, we find
such conduct or omission to be inexcusable.
Accordingly, she is hereby suspended from the practice of law until
further orders from this Court. Let a
copy of this Resolution be furnished each to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and to the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines. The latter shall circulate the fact of this
suspension to the various courts in the Metro Manila area.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes,
JJ., concur.
1
Rollo, pp. 6-8.
2 Id.,
pp. 15-24.
3
TSN of 11 October 1977, p.
19, Annex “2” of Answer.
4
Id., pp. 35-40;
underscoring supplied.
5
Id., pp. 54-55;
underscoring supplied.
6
TSN of 14 July 1977, pp.
15-16, Annex “1” of Answer; underscoring supplied.