FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON, RESPONDENT.

This complaint for disbarment is related to the administrative case
which complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes,
house counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V & G for
short), filed against Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron,
Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s
irregular actuations with regard to the application of V & G for registration of 163 pro forma
Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision.  The present complaint charges the respondent
with the following offenses:

“1.  Neglecting or refusing inspite
(sic) repeated requests and without sufficient justification, to act within
reasonable time (sic) the registration of 163 Deeds of Absolute Sale with
Assignment and the eventual issuance and transfer of
the corresponding 163 transfer certificates of titles to the GSIS, for the
purpose of obtaining some pecuniary or material benefit from the person or
persons interested therein.

“2.  Conduct unbecoming of public official.

“3.  Dishonesty.

“4.  Extortion.

“5.  Directly receiving pecuniary or material
benefit for himself in connection with pending
official transaction before him.

“6.  Causing undue injury to a party, the GSIS [or]
Government through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.

“7.  Gross ignorance of the law and procedure.”
(p. 10, Rollo.)

As early as January 15,
1987, V & G had requested the respondent Register of Deeds to
register some 163 deeds of sale with assignment (in favor of the GSIS) of lots
of the V & G mortgaged to GSIS by the lot buyers.  There was no action from the respondent.

Another request was made on February 16, 1987 for him to approve or deny registration
of the uniform deeds of absolute sale with assignment.  Still no action, except to
require V & G to submit proof of real estate tax payment and to clarify
certain details about the transactions.

Although V & G complied with the desired requirements,
respondent Renomeron suspended the registration of
the documents pending compliance by V & G with a certain “special
arrangement” between them, which was that V & G should provide him
with a weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to
Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in
lieu thereof, the sale of respondent’s Quezon City
house and lot by V & G or GSIS representatives.

On May 19, 1987,
respondent confided to the complainant that he would act favorably on the 163 registrable documents of V & G if the latter would
execute clarificatory affidavits and send money for a
round trip plane ticket for him.

The plane fare amounting to P800 (without the pocket money of P2,000) was sent to respondent through his niece.

Because of V & G’s failure to give him pocket money in
addition to plane fare, respondent imposed additional registration
requirements.  Fed up with the
respondent’s extortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a letter on May 20, 1987 challenging him to act
on all pending applications for registration of V & G within twenty-four
(24) hours.

On May 22, 1987,
respondent formally denied registration of the transfer of 163 certificates of
title to the GSIS on the uniform ground that the deeds of absolute sale with
assignment were ambiguous as to parties and subject matter.  On May
26, 1987, Attorney Collantes moved for a
reconsideration of said denial, stressing that:

“x x x
since the year 1973 continuously up to December 1986 for a period of nearly
fifteen (15) years or for a sum total of more than 2,000 same set of documents
which have been repeatedly and uniformly registered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Tacloban City under Attys.
Modesto Garcia and Pablo Amascual, Jr., it is only
during the incumbency of Atty. Vicente C. Renomeron,
that the very same documents of the same tenor have been refused or denied
registration x x x.” (p. 15, Rollo.)

On May 27, 1987,
respondent elevated the matter en consulta
to the Administrator, National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration (NLTDRA) (now the Land Registration Authority [LRA]).  In a Resolution dated July 27, 1987 (Consulta
No. 1579), the NLTDRA ruled that the questioned documents were registrable. 
Heedless of the NLTDRA’s opinion, respondent continued to sit on V &
G’s 163 deeds of sale with assignment.

Exasperated by respondent’s conduct, the complainant filed with
the NLTDRA on June 4, 1987
administrative charges (docketed as Adm. Case No. 87-15), against respondent
Register of Deeds.

Upon receipt of the charges, NLTDRA Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio directed
respondent to explain in writing why no administrative disciplinary action
should be taken against him.  Respondent
was further asked whether he would submit his case on the basis of his answer,
or be heard in a formal investigation.

In his answer dated July
9, 1987, respondent denied the charges of extortion and of directly
receiving pecuniary or material benefit for himself in connection with the
official transactions awaiting his action.

Although an investigator was appointed by NLTDRA Administrator Bonifacio to hear Attorney Collantes‘
charges against him, Attorney Renomeron waived his
right to a formal investigation.  Both
parties submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings.

The investigator, Attorney Leonardo Da
Jose, recommended dropping the charges of: 
(1) dishonesty; (2) causing undue injury to a party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and (3) gross ignorance of the law and procedure.  He opined that the charge of neglecting or
refusing, in spite repeated requests and without sufficient justification, to
act within a reasonable time on the registration of the documents involved, in
order to extort some pecuniary or material benefit from the interested party,
absorbed the charges of conduct unbecoming of a public official, extortion, and
directly receiving some pecuniary or material benefit for himself in connection
with pending official transactions before him.

Brushing aside the investigator’s recommendation, NLTDRA
Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio
on February 22, 1988, recommended to Secretary of Justice Sedfrey
A. Ordoñez that the respondent:  (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of
duty; (2) be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for
registration; and (3) be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be
dealt with more severely.

After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoñez found respondent guilty of grave misconduct.

“Our study and consideration of the records of the case
indicate that ample evidence supports the Investigating Officer’s findings that
the respondent committed grave misconduct.

“The respondent unreasonably delayed action on the documents
presented to him for registration and, notwithstanding representations by the
parties interested for expeditious action on the said documents, he continued
with his inaction.

“The records indicate that the respondent eventually formally
denied the registration of the documents involved; that he himself elevated the
question on the registrability of the said documents
to Administrator Bonifacio after he formally denied
the registration thereof; that the Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the said documents in question; and that,
such resolution of the Administrator notwithstanding, the respondent still
refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the
submission of additional requirementls not adverted
to in his previous denial.

“xxx               xxx                   xxx.

“In relation to the alleged ‘special arrangement,’ although
the respondent claims that he neither­ touched nor received the money sent to
him, on record remains uncontroverted the
circumstance that his niece, Ms. de la Cruz, retrieved from him the amount of P800.00 earlier sent to him as
plane fare, not in the original denomination of P100.00 bills but in P50.00
bills.  The respondent had ample
opportunity to clarify or to countervail this related incident in his letter
dated 5 September 1987 to
Administrator Bonifacio but he never did so.

“x x x We believe that, in this case, the respondent’s being new in
office cannot serve to mitigate his liability. 
His being so should have motivated him to be more aware of applicable
laws, rules and regulations and should have prompted him to do his best in the
discharge of his duties.” (pp. 17-18, Rollo.)

Secretary Ordoñez recommended to
President Corazon C. Aquino that Renomeron
be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service,
effective immediately.

As recommended by the Secretary of Justice, the President of the Philippines,
by Adm. Order No. 165 dated May 3, 1990,
dismissed the respondent from the government service (pp. 14-19, Rollo).

Less than two weeks after filing his complaint against Renomeron in the NLTDRA, Attorney Collantes
also filed in this Court on June 16,
1987, a disbarment complaint against said respondent.

The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent
register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court for his
malfeasances as a public official.  The
answer is yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.

The lawyer’s oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court: People
vs. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man
for money or malice.  The lawyer’s oath
is a source of his obligations and its violation is a
ground for his suspension, disbarment or
other disciplinary action (Legal Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-67).

As the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro said:

“A person takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which
is designed to impress upon him his responsibilities.  He thereby becomes an ‘officer of the court’
on whose shoulders rests the grave responsibility of
assisting the courts in the proper, fair, speedy and efficient administration
of justice.  As an officer of the court
he is subject to a rigid discipline that demands that in his every exertion the
only criterion be that truth and justice triumph.  This discipline is what has given the law
profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted place.  From a lawyer, to
paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected
those qualities of truth-speaking, a high
sense of honor, full candor, intellectual
honesty, and the strictest observance of
fiduciary responsibility – all of which,
throughout the centuries, have been compendiously
described as ‘moral character.’

“Membership in the Bar is in
the category of a mandate to public
service of the highest order.  A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose
conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for
which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.” (Apostacy in the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789-790;
underscoring supplied.)

The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6).  Just as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials requires public officials and employees to
process documents and papers
expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and [d]) and
prohibits them from directly or indirectly having a financial or material
interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office, and
likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the
course of any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their
office (Sec. 7, subpars. [a]
and [d]), the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of
Professional Responsibility), or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt
motive or interest” (Rule 1.03).

“A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.”
(Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.)

This Court has ordered that only those who are “competent,
honorable, and reliable” may practice the profession of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293) for every lawyer must pursue
“only the highest standards in the practice of his calling” (Court
Administrator vs. Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269, 278).

The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have demonstrated
his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law (Bautista vs.
Judge Guevarra, 142
SCRA 632; Court Administrator vs.
Rodolfo G.  Hermoso, 150
SCRA 269).  He should therefore be
disbarred.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron be disbarred from the practice of law in the Philippines,
and that his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.