ESTEBAN M. LIBIT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. EDELSON G. OLIVA AND FLORANDO A. UMALI, RESPONDENTS.

In Civil Case No. 84-24144 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, entitled “Pedro Cutingting, plaintiff versus
Alfredo Tan, defendant”, the Honorable Presiding Judge Domingo Panis issued the following order:

The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is
hereby ordered to conduct an investigation with the end in view of determining
the author of the Sheriff’s Return which appears to have been falsified and to
institute such criminal action as the evidence will warrant. (p. 1, Final
Report.)

After conducting the necessary investigation, the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI), through herein complainant, charged respondents, as
follows:

That sometime in May 1984 in the City of Manila,
at the Regional Trial Court, Branch XLI, Manila,
Philippines, the
above-named Respondents, as Counsels for PEDRO CUTINGTING in Civil Case No.
84-24144, entitled PEDRO CUTINGTING, Plaintiff vs. ALFREDO TAN, Defendant, did
then and there, knowingly, wilfully
introduced/presented in evidence before the aforesaid Regional Trial Court, a
falsified Sheriff’s Return of summons during the hearing of the aforesaid Civil
Case thereby impending and/or obstructing the speedy administration and/or
dispensation of justice, (p. 2, Final Report, ff. p. 69, Record.)

Respondents in their respective answers denied having any hand in
the falsification of the said sheriff’s return.

Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the resolution
of the Court En Banc of April 12, 1988,
the case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, Report, and recommendation.

In view, however, of the report of the National Bureau of Investigation
to the effect that the signature above the typewritten name Florando
Umali on the last page of the complaint in said civil
case is not his signature, complainant, through counsel, agreed to the
dismissal of the case with respect to Atty. Umali.

With respect to Atty. Edelson G. Oliva, the IBP submitted the following report and
recommendation:

There is ample evidence extant in the records to prove that Atty. Oliva has something to do with the falsification of the
Sheriff’s Return on the Summons in said Civil Case No. 84-24144.

The oral and documentary evidence of the complainant strongly tend
to show the following: (1) The Sheriff’s Return of the Summon in the said civil
case was falsified as it was not signed by Deputy Sheriff Rodolfo Torella (Exh. “J”
-Sworn Statement of Rodolfo Torella dated February 1, 1985, and Exh. “S”, which is the falsified Sheriff’s
Return); (2) The summons was received from the Clerk of Court of the Manila
RTC-Branch LXI by Ronaldo Romero, a messenger in the
law office of Attys. Umali and Oliva
and said messenger brought the summons to the law office of the respondents (Exh. “H” – Sinumpaang Salaysay ni
Ronaldo Romero, and Exh.
“G”, Exh. “I” -Sworn Statement
dated February 28, 1985 of Mariano Villanueva, Chief Staff Asst. 2, RTC,
Manila; (3) On the basis of the falsified Sheriff’s Return on the Summons,
Atty. Oliva, counsel for the defendant [should be
plaintiff] in said civil case/ filed a typewritten Motion to Declare Defendant
in Default (Exh. “R” – Motion To Declare
Defendant In Default in said civil case signed and filed by Atty. Oliva); (4) On March 29, 1984, Atty. Oliva,
in his capacity as Operations Manager of Judge Pio R.
Marcos Law Office, sent a final demand letter on Alfredo Tan, the defendant in
said civil case, for payment of the sum of P70,174.00 (Exh.
“T” – Demand Letter dated March
28, 1984 of Atty. Oliva addressed to
Alfredo Tan); (5) The demand letter of Atty. Oliva (Exh. “T”), the
complaint in said civil case (Exh. “Q”,
“Q-1” and “Q-2”), the falsified Sheriff’s Return on the Summons (Exh. “S”), the Motion To Declare
Defendant In Default dated October
30, 1984 signed and filed by Atty. Oliva
(Exh. “R” and R-1″) were typed on one
and the same typewriter as shown in the Questioned Document .Report No. 198-585
dated 19 June 1985 (Exh. “Q”,
“Q-1” and “Q-2”; Exh.
“V”, “V-1″ and “V-2”),

After a careful review of the record of the case and the report
and recommendation of the IBP, the Court finds that respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts
of misconduct which warrant the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary
powers. The facts, as supported by the evidence, obtaining in this  case indubitably reveal respondent’s failure
to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the
lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
professional Ethics. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the
interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill
motives and malicious intentions against the other party.

At this juncture, it is well to stress once again that practice
of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law
for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the
observance of honesty and candor. It can not be gainsaid that candidness,
especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration
of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from
the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand,
has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. It is essential that
lawyers bear in mind at all times that their first duty is not to their clients
but rather to the courts, that they are above all court officers sworn to
assist the courts in rendering justice to all and sundry, and only secondarily
are they advocates of the exclusive interests of their clients. For this
reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court (Chavez vs. Viola, 196 SCRA 10 [1991]).

In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a
lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule 10.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

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.

Accordingly; the Court resolved to impose upon Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty
of DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the Philippines
is CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the
Roll of Attorneys.

The case is ordered dismissed as against Atty. Florando Umali.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.