RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA, RESPONDENT.

By complaint filed with this Court on January 23, 1987, Rodolfo
M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the
following administrative offenses:

1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use:

a) part of the sum
of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on property belonging
to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision known as Valle Verde I; and

b) part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted
to him for payment of taxes and expenses in connection with the registration of
the title of Bernardo to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde
V;

2) falsification of certain documents, to wit:

a) a special power of attorney dated March 16,
1985 purportedly executed in his favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51,
complainant’s affidavit dated October 4, 1989);

b) a deed of sale dated
October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, id.); and

c) a deed of assignment
purportedly executed by the spouses, Tomas and Remedios Pastor, in Bernardo’s
favor (Annex Q, par. 52, id.);

3) issuing a check,
knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained
from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter replacing said check
with others known also to be insufficiently funded.

In his defense and in attempted refutation of Bernardo’s
averments, respondent Mejia filed an answer. He subsequently filed no less than thirty-two (32) other pleadings,
affidavits and papers many bearing such quaint titles as “A Blinding
Reptilia;” “Fish Caught in the Mouth;” “Society: Need for Lawyers; “Pains of
Wounds;” “House of Law;” “Equal Submission;”
“Christmas Star;” “The Advent: A New Beginning.” Withal, he made no clear and categorical
denials of the accusations against him. Bernardo himself filed no small number of pleadings, affidavits and
other papers, numbering sixteen (16) in all.

The matter was in due course referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. There the parties submitted the case for
resolution on the basis of their respective affidavits, amplified by their respective memoranda.

On October 8, 1991 a majority of the IBP Board of Governors
rendered a Resolution which was submitted to this Court on April 6, 1992. In that Resolution the Board found all the
accusations against respondent Mejia to have been fully substantiated by the
evidence on record and recommended respondent’s disbarment. The Governors’ reasoned conclusions are as
follows:

Anent the First Issue: After considering the various affidavits and pleadings of the parties,
it clearly appears that complainant signed two (2) blank checks; delivered them
to respondent and had authorized him to fill them up in the amounts sufficient
to cover the amounts of the real estate taxes due on the complainant’s property
located at 8 Macapuno, Valle Verde I, Pasig, Metro Manila; that respondent
filled up those blank checks as follows: P13, 450.00 for TBMC Check No. 24223700 dated February 1985 and
P14,260.00 for TBMC Check No. 24223701 of even date (Exhibits “A” and
“B”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4, 1989); the respondent encashed
these checks and received the proceeds therefor (P27,710.00) intended to pay
the real estate taxes of complainant’s property.

When asked to make an accounting of the P27,710.00, the respondent
informed the complainant that he had paid all the real estate taxes due on the
land and on the improvements. Respondent admitted in his written Computation (Annex “C”,
Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4, 1989) given to complainant that he spent
P10,010.00 of the amount for his personal use which he expressly acknowledged
and committed to return to the complainant. (Annex “C”).

The complainant was however shocked to learn that the real estate
taxes were not actually paid as represented in the written Computation
submitted by the respondent. The
non-payment is established by the Statement of Account on Real Property Tax
dated December 27, 1985 obtained from the proper government authority (Exhibit
“S”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4, 1985). At this juncture, it must be noted that the
Statement was addressed to Adonis Tupaz, the previous owner from which the
property was purchased (See par. I, Affidavit of complainant attached to
Exhibit “U”).

There being no payments made, the respondent is presumed to have
misappropriated the sum of P17,710.00 which he did not use for the payment of
the taxes he was commissioned to pay by his client, the complainant. The respondent failed to explain
satisfactorily the disappearance of the money. The presumption that he misappropriated the money stands. (See: In re Bamberger, 49 Phil. 962; Mococo vs. Diaz, 70 Phil. 97).

For this act of misappropriation he deserves severe punishment
(Daroy vs. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304; Capulong vs. Alino, Administrative Case No.
381, February 10, 1968).

However, the amount of P10,000.00 which he acknowledged as
returnable to the complainant, will not be considered as having been
misappropriated, although, in having used the money without prior consent of
the complainant, he is guilty of misconduct, though not as grave as the act of
misappropriation.

Anent the second and the
third issues: It appears that in July 1985, the
complainant (before the discovery of the anomaly concerning the first property)
also gave the respondent P40,000.00 in four (4) checks of P10,000.00 each for
the purpose of paying the taxes due and to secure the title of the property
which complainant bought from Mr. and Mrs. Tomas Pastor. These checks were all encashed by
respondent. (Exhibits “E”, “F”, “G” and
“H”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4, 1989).

Respondent was supposed to register the Deed of Sale executed by
and between the complainant and Mr. and Mrs. Tomas Pastor. The deed was prepared and notarized by the
respondent. The consideration for the
sale was P570,000.00 (Exhibit “D”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4,
1989). The respondent kept the original
copy of the deed and gave a duplicate copy thereof to each of the parties.

For the services rendered and to be rendered by the respondent
which includes the transfer of the title of the property to the complainant, he
was paid P10,000.00 in check by the complainant.

After the lapse of some weeks, complainant tried to communicate
with the respondent in order to find out the status of the property. Complainant meantime negotiated the property
and was being rushed by his buyer, a certain Menandro Cancio, who was allegedly
becoming impatient over the delay in the transfer of the property in his name
and which could only be effected after the Deed of Sale in favor of complainant
by the previous owner (Tomas Pastor) shall have been first registered.

Sensing that respondent was deliberately evading him, the
complainant made a personal follow-up at the BIR office and the Registry of
Deeds of Pasig. Thereat, he discovered
that respondent had not paid the taxes he was supposed to pay out of the
P40,000.00 he received from the complainant.

As Menandro Cancio was already threatening the complainant, the
latter was constrained to pay as he did pay the sums of P22,204.00 to cover up registration
fee, transfer fee, capital gains tax and other requirements. Officials receipts were duly issued for the
payments made by the complainant. (Exhibits “J”, “K”, “L”, “M” and
“N”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4, 1989).

After paying the above taxes, complainant was given the various
documents which respondent submitted to the BIR and the Registry of Deeds. It was thus discovered that respondent
instead of submitting the original and genuine Deed of Sale with a
consideration of P570,000.00 had instead submitted a different Deed of Sale
with a reduced consideration of P35,000.00 only.

From the evidence on record, including the NBI Report, it appears
that complainant and Tomas Pastor did not sign this Deed of Sale submitted by
the respondent. (Exhibit “O”,
Complainant’s Affidavit dated Oct. 4, 1989). This fake deed was notarized by Atty. Apolinar Mangahas, who however,
claimed that the document was brought to him by respondent for notarization with
a person whom he introduced as Rodolfo
Bernardo, Jr. However, during the NBI
investigation, when Atty. Mangahas saw the complainant, he admitted that he had
not seen him yet before.

It also appears that respondent submitted a falsified Special Power
of Attorney purportedly signed by the complainant. (Exhibit “P”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4,
1989). To this, respondent counters
that complainant himself authorized a woman to sign his name to avoid delay in
the registration and so that the respondent as attorney-in-fact for the
complainant might be able to register then an adverse claim on the title of the
property in question. Even assuming
this claim to be true, respondent who is a lawyer, sworn to do no falsehood,
must not have agreed to take any part in such acts of falsification.

It further appears that respondent submitted to the BIR spurious
Deed of Assignment purportedly executed by the Spouses Tomas Pastor and
Remedios Pastor in favor of complainant. Again the parties did not sign this deed.

As a result of the faking of the aforecited documents, the
respondent succeeded in reducing the taxes and fees to be paid. He paid only the sum of P6,885.96 to the BIR
and the Registry of Deeds.

Consequently, he gained P33,114.04
out of the P40,000.00 entrusted to him intended for the payment of taxes due
and the expenses for securing the title of the property in the name of the
complainant. Respondent had thus
cheated the Government and his client.

In devising schemes through the preparation and submission of
spurious deeds to defraud the Government and his client, respondent is guilty
of deceit. (In re Avanceña, 20 SCRA
1012).

Moreover, in receiving the money and pocketing it for his own
personal use, respondent has betrayed his client’s trust and these acts justify
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions upon him. (Daroy vs. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304; Melegrito vs. Barba, 58 Phil.
513).

Anent the fourth issue: There
is no question that the postdated check in the amount of P50,000.00 which the
respondent issued to complainant had bounced. (Exhibit “P”, Complainant’s Affidavit, Oct. 4, 1989). Upon his supplication, this was later
substituted by him with new checks which however also bounced due to
insufficiency of funds. This constitutes
also grave misconduct.

A lawyer must always observe good faith and justice in his dealings
whether in the pursuit of his profession or in his private affairs. (See: In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 569; Piatt vs. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350). And as recently decided by the Supreme
Court, violation of B.P. BLG. 22 is considered a crime involving moral
turpitude.

For all the foregoing, the Board of Governors most respectfully
recommends that respondent Atty. Ismael F. Mejia be disbarred.”

A thoroughgoing review of the affidavits, pleadings and other
papers filed by the parties convinces this Court of the correctness of the
foregoing conclusions of the IBP Board of Governors. They are consequently hereby adopted and approved.

WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES the respondent, Atty. Ismael
F. Mejia, guilty of all the charges against him and hereby imposes on him the
penalty of DISBARMENT. Pending finality
of this judgment, and effective immediately, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law. Let
a copy of this Decision be spread in his record in the Bar Confidant’s Office,
and notice thereof furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as
the Court Administrator who is DIRECTED to inform all the Courts concerned of
this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero, Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Paras*, J., retired.

* Retired as of July 4, 1992