ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ISABELO ONGTENGCO, ACHILLES BARTOLOME, AND ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTORNEY BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, RESPONDENT.

This disbarment complaint against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia was filed on August
20, 1991 by Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo
Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolome
and the St. Luke’s Medical Center
(hereafter “St. Luke’s” for brevity) where they are accredited
medical practitioners. The respondent is charged with dishonesty and grave
misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from a medical chart
which was material evidence in a damage suit filed by his clients against the aforenamed doctors and St. Luke’s.

Disciplinary proceedings like this one are- in a class by
themselves. As we observed in In Re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562, 600, they are neither purely
civil nor purely criminal. “Public interest is the primary objective, and
the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a
fit person to be allowed the privileges as such.” The purpose is “to
protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the
court” (In Re Montagne & Dominguez, 3 Phil.
577, 588), or to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has
proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging
to the office of an attorney (Ledesma vs. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473; Atienza vs.
Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338).

Disbarment is nothing new to respondent Grecia.
On November 12, 1987, he was disbarred for his immoral complicity or
“unholy alliance” with a judge in Quezon
City to rip off banks and Chinese business firms which had the misfortune to be
sued in the latter’s court (Prudential Bank vs. Judge Jose P. Castro and Atty.
Benjamin M. Grecia [Adm. Case No. 2756], 155 SCRA
604).

Three years later, on December
18, 1990, the Court, heeding his pleas for compassion and his
promise to mend his ways, reinstated him in the profession. Only eight (8)
months later, on August 20, 1991,
he was back before the court facing another charge of dishonesty and unethical
practice. Apparently, the earlier disciplinary action that the Court took
against him did not effectively reform him.

The complaint of St. Luke’s against Attorney Grecia
was referred by the Court to Deputy Court Administrator Juanito
A. Bernad for investigation, report and
recommendation. The following are Judge Bernad’s
findings:

The late Fe Linda Aves was seven (7) months pregnant when she was
admitted as a patient at St. Luke’s Hospital on December 20, 1990. She complained of dizziness,
hypertension, and abdominal pains with vaginal bleeding. Dr. Fernandez, head of
the OB-GYNE Department of St. Luke’s, Dr. Ongtengco,
Jr., a cardiologist, and Dr. Bartolome, a urologist,
examined Mrs. Aves and diagnosed her problem as mild pre-eclampsia
(p. 63, Rollo). Five (5) days later, on Christmas
Day, December 25, 1990,
Mrs. Aves was discharged from the hospital, to celebrate Christmas with her family.

However, she was rushed back to the hospital the next day, December 26, 1990. On December 27, 1990, she died together
with her unborn child.

Blaming the doctors of St. Luke’s for his wife’s demise, Attorney
Damaso B. Aves, along with his three (3) minor
children, brought an action for damages against the hospital and the attending
physicians of his wife. Their counsel, respondent Attorney Benjamin Grecia, filed a complaint entitled: “Attorney Damaso B. Aves, et al. vs. St Luke’s Medical
Center, Drs. Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Jr. and
Achilles Bartolome” in the Regional Trial Court
of Valenzuela, Bulacan, where it was docketed as
Civil Case No. 3548-V and assigned to Branch 172, presided over by Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong.

On July 4, 1991,
the medical records of Fe Linda Aves were produced in court by St Luke’s, as
requested by Attorney Grecia. The records were
entrusted to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Avelina
Robles.

On July 16, 1991,
between 8:30-9:00 o’clock in the
morning, upon arriving in court for another hearing of the case, Attorney Grecia borrowed from Mrs. Robles the folder containing the
medical records of Mrs. Aves.

While leafing through the folder, Grecia
surreptitiously tore off two (2) pages of the medical records. The respondent’s
act was noticed by Mrs. Robles and Maria Arnet Sandico, a clerk. They saw Grecia
crumple the papers and place them inside the right pocket of his coat. He
immediately returned the folder to Mrs. Robles (who was momentarily rendered
speechless by his audacious act) and left the office.

Mrs. Robles examined the medical chart and found pages
“72” and “73” missing. She ordered Sandico
to follow the respondent. Sandico saw Grecia near the canteen at the end of the building, calling
a man (presumably his driver) who was leaning against a parked car (presumably Grecia’s car). When the man approached, Grecia
gave him the crumpled papers which he took from his coat pocket,
Sandico returned to the office and reported what she
had seen to Mrs. Robles. The latter in turn reported it to Judge Capulong. The three of them -Judge Capulong,
Mrs. Robles and Ms. Sandico – went downstairs. Ms. Sandico pointed to Judge Capulong
the man to whom Grecia had given the papers which he
had filched from the medical folder of Linda Aves. Judge Capulong
told Sandico to bring the man to her chamber. On the
way back to her chamber, Judge Capulong saw the
plaintiff, Attorney Damaso Aves, and St. Luke’s
counsel, Attorney Melanie Limson. She requested them
to come to her office.

In the presence of Attorneys Aves and Limson,
Mrs. Robles, Ms. Sandico, and a visitor, Judge Capulong confronted the man and ordered him to give her the
papers which Grecia had passed on to him. The man at
first denied that he had the papers in his possession. However, when Sandico declared that she saw Grecia
hand over the papers to him, the man sheepishly took them from his pants pocket
and gave them to Judge Capulong. When the crumpled
pages “72” and “73” of the medical folder were shown to Sandico, she identified them as the same papers that she
saw Grecia hand over to the man.

After the confrontation, Sandico and
Robles went back to their office. Mrs. Robles collapsed in a dead faint and was
rushed to the Fatima Hospital
where she later regained consciousness.

In the ensuing excitement and confusion of recovering the stolen
exhibits, no one thought of ascertaining the identity of the man from whom they
were recovered. Judge Capulong belatedly realized
this, so she directed the Valenzuela Police to find out who he was. She also
ordered Sandico to submit a formal report of the
theft of the exhibits to the police.

A police investigator, PO3 Arnold Alabastro,
tried to ascertain the name of Grecia’s driver who
was known only as “SID.” He located Grecia’s
house in Quezon City. Although he was not allowed to
enter the premises, he was able to talk with a housemaid. He pretended to be a
cousin of “SID” and asked for the latter. The housemaid informed him
that “SID” was sent home to his province by Grecia.

He talked with Grecia himself .but the
latter denied that he had a driver named “SID.”

PO3 Alabastro also talked with one of Grecia’s neighbors across the street. The neighbor
confirmed .that Grecia’s driver was a fellow named
“SID”.

The incident caused enormous emotional strain to the personnel of
Judge Capulong’s court, so much so that the Acting
Branch Clerk of Court, Avelina Robles, was
hospitalized. Because of the incident, Judge Capulong
inhibited .herself from conducting the trial of Civil Case No. 3548-V.

On August 20, 1991,
St. Luke’s filed this disbarment case against Grecia.

At the investigation of the case by Judge Bernad,
Attorney Damaso Aves, the surviving spouse of the
late Fe Linda Aves and plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3548-V, testified that it
was Attorney Bu Castro, counsel of the defendants in said Civil Case No.
3548-V, who lifted two pages from the medical folder which lay among some
papers on top of the table of Acting Branch Clerk of Court Robles. When he
allegedly went outside the courthouse to wait for Attorney Grecia
to arrive, he noticed Attorney Castro come out of the building and walk toward
a man in the parking lot to whom he handed a piece of paper. Afterward,
Attorney Castro reentered the courthouse.

Respondent Grecia denied any knowledge
of the theft of the exhibits in the Aves case. He alleged that the person who
was caught in possession of the detached pages of the medical record was
actually “planted” by his adversaries to discredit him and destroy
his reputation.

He denied that he had a driver. He alleged that his car was out
of order on July 16, 1991,
so he was fetched by the driver of Attorney Aves in the latter’s ‘
“Maxima” car. He arrived in the courthouse at exactly 9:15 in the morning and went straight to the
courtroom on the second floor of the building. He did not leave the place until
his case was called at 9:40. Since it
was allegedly a very warm day, he wore a dark blue barong tagalog, not a business suit. He branded the
testimony of Ms. Sandico as an absolute falsehood. He
alleged that he would not have done the act imputed to him, because the medical
chart was the very foundation of the civil case which he filed against St.
Luke’s and its doctors. He wondered why the man, alleged to be his driver, to
whom he supposedly gave the detached pages of the medical chart, was neither
held nor arrested. His identity was not even established.

He likewise branded the testimony of Police Investigator Alabastro as a fabrication for he had never seen him
before.

He underscored the fact that none of the lawyers in the
courthouse, nor any of the court personnel, accosted him about the purloined
pages of the medical record and he alleged that the unidentified man remained
in the courtroom even after the confrontation in the Judge’s chamber.

In evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, Judge Bernad found the court employee, Maria Arnie
Sandico, and Acting Branch Clerk of Court Avelina Robles entirely credible and “without any
noticeable guile nor attempt at fabrication, remaining constant even under
pressure of cross examination” (p. 11, Judge Bernad’s
Report).

That the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Mrs. Robles, who is not
even -a lawyer, and her lowly clerk, Ms. Sandico, did
not promptly raise a hue and cry on seeing Grecia
tear off two pages of the medical record, was understandable for they hesitated
to confront a man of his stature. Nevertheless, they had the presence of mind
to immediately report the matter to their Judge who forthwith took appropriate
steps to recover the exhibits. Robles, Sandico and
PO3 Alabastro had absolutely no motive to testify
falsely against the respondent.

While Judge Capulong took the blame for
failing to ascertain the identity of Attorney Grecia’s
“driver,” her swift action in summoning and confronting him “led
to the recovery of the stolen pages of the medical chart.

Unfortunately, the inquiry made by Police Investigator Arnold Alabastro into the identity of the man was fruitless for he
was never seen again.

Attorney Aves’ allegation that it was St. Luke’s counsel,
Attorney Castro, not Grecia, who stole the pages from
the medical folder and slipped them to an unidentified man, is an incredible
fabrication. Not only is it directly contradicted by Mrs. Robles and Ms. Sandico, but, significantly, Attorney Aves failed to
mention it during the confrontation with the man inside Judge Capulong’s chamber where he (Attorney Aves) was present.

His other allegation that he saw the man inside the courtroom
afterwards, is not credible for he would have called the attention of Judge Capulong who, he knew, had been looking for the man to
ascertain his identity.

In view of his obvious bias for his counsel, Aves’ testimony was
properly disregarded by the investigator, Judge Bernad.
Likewise wanting in truth and candor was Grecia’s
testimony. Judge Bernad noted that while Grecia was punctilious when testifying on the hour of his
arrival in court (9:15 A.M.) on July 16, 1991, and he even remembered
that on that day he wore a dark blue barong tagalog (an apparel that has no pockets), his memory
was not as sharp when he was cross-examined regarding more recent events. For
instance, he insisted that Judge Bernad was absent on
August 4, 1992, but the
truth is that a hearing was held on that date as shown by the transcript.

When he was confronted with exhibits “A” and
“B,” Grecia tried to make an issue of the
absence of a court order to deposit Linda Aves’ medical chart in court. He
forgot that it was he who asked that the chart be left with the clerk of court.

His allegation that he would be the last person to remove pages
72 and 73 of the medical chart for the entries therein are favorable to his
client’s cause is specious. As a matter of fact, the entries show that after
Mrs. Aves was readmitted to the hospital on December 26, 1990, the doctors were able to stabilize her
blood pressure with a normal reading of 120/80.

On the basis of the evidence presented before Judge Bernad, the Court is convinced that the charge against
Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is true. By stealing two
pages from Linda Aves’ medical chart and passing them on to his driver, he
violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility as well
as Canon 7 thereof which provide that:

“Canon 1.  x x x

“Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful conduct.”

“Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.

A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is “like the court
itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice” (People ex
rel Karlin vs. Culkin, 60 A.L.R. 851, 855). An
incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” like Grecia
would be ill-suited to discharge the role of “an instrument to advance the
ends of justice.”

The importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a
lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his profession has been stressed by this
Court repeatedly.

“x x x The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency
as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do
honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be
done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
the profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248,
September 18, 1992, pp. 13-14.)

“x x x. The nature of the office of an attorney at law
requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification
is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its
continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law, in
the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the part
of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of professional duties as a
member of the bar, which puts his moral character in serious doubt, renders him
unfit to continue in the practice of law.” (Melendrez
vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662, 676.)

“x x x
public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant
should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who are
sworn to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as being
subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients
and the public.” (Phil. Association of Free Labor Unions [PAFLU] vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company,
42 SCRA 302, 305.)

By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He
has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable
fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.

“Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to
be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person
to enjoy the privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of
an attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal
profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.” (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, p. 15.)

WHEREFORE, the Court
finds Attorney Benjamin Grecia guilty of grave
misconduct, dishonesty, and grossly unethical behavior as a lawyer. Considering
that this is his second offense against the canons of the profession, the Court
resolved to impose upon him once more the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. His
license to practice law in the Philippines
is hereby CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is ordered to strike out his name
from the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., No Part. Related to counsel of one party.

Padilla, J.,