PROSPERO HIPOLITO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMEO J. CALLEJO, RESPONDENT.

This is a Petition filed on March 3, 1970 against respondent Atty. Romeo J.
Callejo, counsel of Mobil Oil
Philippines, Inc. in Civil Case
No. 12754, entitled “Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. vs. Prospero Hipolito, et al.”, before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.  The Petition, actually a Complaint,
seeks disbarment of respondent, by complainant
Prospero Hipolito, one of the defendants in said case.  Complainant alleged that respondent counsel
falsified the signature of Rogelio Panotes appearing in the verification of the
complaint in said case.^[1]

After respondent had submitted his answer denying the charge
against him;^[2]
the reply thereto filed by complainant;^[3]
and the Rejoinder,^[4]
the matter was referred to the Solicitor General on June 8, 1970, for investigation, report and
recommendation.^[5]

On July 13, 1977,
the Solicitor General sub­mitted his Report, recommending dismissal of the
petition for disbarment against respondent.^[6]

The facts, as found by the Solicitor General, are as follow:

“Sometime in December 1969 or January 1970, Mobil through its
general counsel Atty. Avelino Cruz, engaged the services of respondent as its
retained counsel to collect from herein petitioner Prospero Hipolito and his
wife, the amount of P59,812.12
allegedly due from them as dealers of Mobil and as lessees of one of the service
stations of said corporation, and to effect the rescission of the
dealer-retail and lease contract between it and the spouses Hipolito, as well as the recovery of the equipment of
the former then allegedly in the possession of the latter (Exh. ‘35′ for respondent). 
Accordingly, respondent made the cor­responding demand upon said spouses
but evidently the latter did not comply therewith.  Instead, petitioner herein filed a complaint
dated January 20, 1970,
with the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Br. IV) docketed as Civil Case
No. 14001 entitled ‘Prospero Hipolito vs. Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc., et al.,’
for ‘Reformation of Instrument With Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction’ (Exh. ‘6-B’ for respondent).  Due to the alleged failure of the spouses
Hipolito to comply with the aforemention demand of respondent in behalf of
Mobil, and unaware of the complaint filed by Prospero Hipolito with the Court
of First Instance of Quezon City, respondent Romeo J. Callejo, upon
consultation with Mobil’s general counsel in the presence of two other lawyers
of Mobil, Attys. Cesar Beroya and Rogelio Panotes, advised the filing of the
corresponding complaint against the spouses Hipolito and their sureties.  Conformably with his advice, respondent was
requested to prepare the complaint with the instruction of the general counsel
of Mobil that the complaint would be verified by Atty. Cesar Berroya.

“On January 27, 1970,
respondent Romeo J. Callejo went to the office of the general counsel of Mobil
to have Atty. Beroya sign the verification of the complaint against the spouses
Hipolito.  He arrived thereat shortly
before noon but Atty. Beroya was not then available as he had earlier left the
office to attend to an urgent official business.  After a brief conference bet­ween respondent,
Mobil’s general counsel Atty. Avelino Cruz, and Atty. Rogelio B. Panotes, it
was agreed that Atty. Panotes would just sign the Verification so that said
complaint could be forth­with filed and included in the raffle of cases for
that day.  Instead of retyping pages 7
and 8 of the complaint embodying the Verification, however, respondent, with
the Conformity of the other two lawyers aforementioned, just crossed-out the
typewritten name of Cesar Berroya appearing in the body and at the bottom of the Verification and wrote
on top of each crossed?out name, the name ‘Rogelio Panotes’.  Thereafter, Atty. Rogelio Panotes affixed his
signature immediately above the handwritten name ‘Rogelio Panotes’ at the
bottom of the Veri­fication on pages 8 of the complaint (Exhs. ‘2’, ‘2-C’ & ’35’ for respondent).

“The complaint was subsequently filed with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal (Branch V) docketed as Civil Case No. 12754 (Exhs. ‘3′, ‘3-F’, for
respondent), on the basis of which, the then Presiding Judge of said court, now
Associate Judge (sic, should be justice) of the Court of Appeals, the Honorable
Guardson Lood, issued an ‘Order’ dated January 28, 1970, direct­ing the deputy
sheriff of the court to take possession of the equipment des­cribed in the
complaint allegedly in the possession of the spouses Hipolito (Exh. ’26-D’, for the respondent). The writ was served on said
spouses in the afternoon of the same day at the Mobil gasoline station operated
by them.  The wife of herein petitioner
who actually received a copy of the writ thereupon informed the sheriff of an
alleged restraining order and requested him to wait for their lawyer.  The lawyer who
turned out to be Atty. Jose T. Francisco, subse­quently arrived but he did not
have with him the alleged restrain­ing order. 
Instead, said lawyer requested for a copy of Mobil’s bond which was
readily furnished him by respondent and thereafter, left even as the sheriff
gave him about twenty minutes to return with the restraining order in
question.  Atty. Francisco, however,
failed to return within the alloted time and so, the sheriff proceeded to imple­ment
the said writ by virtue of which, he was able to take posses­sion of four
gasoline pumps from the gasoline station operated by the spouses Hipolito (Exh.
’35’, Ibid).

“As a counter-move, herein petitioner Prospero Hipolito
through his counsel Atty. Jose T. Francisco, filed an ‘Urgent Motion To Cite
Defendants & Atty. Romeo J. Callejo For Contempt of Court, etc.’ (Exh. ‘14-B’, for respondent) with the Court of First Instance
of Quezon City (Branch IV) before which the afore-cited case entitled ‘Prospero
Hipolito vs. Mobil Oil Philippines,
et al.’, was pending.  The motion was set
for hearing on January 31, 1970,
but respondent Romeo J. Callejo received a copy thereof only in the afternoon
of January 30, 1970.  Later in the afternoon of said date, herein
respondent was informed by Mobil that it had received in the morning of the
same day, the summons in Civil Case No. Q-14001 together with a copy of the com­plaint
and the restraining order dated January
24, 1970, issued in said case.

“As respondent Romeo J. Callejo was scheduled to attend the
hearing of another case in the Court of First Instance of San Fernando,
Pampanga, on the same day that the aforesaid Motion of Prospero Hipolito was
set for hearing, he accordingly requested Atty. Rogelio Panotes to appear
before the Quezon City Court,
in behalf of Mobil (Exh. ’35’, Ibid).

“Evidently noting the difference between the signature of
Rogelio Panotes appearing in petitioner’s aforementioned Motion to cite Mobil
and respondent Callejo for contempt, and the signature of Rogelio Panotes
written above the crossed-out name Rogelio Panotes appearing at the bottom of
the Verification of the Complaint in
Civil Case No. 12754, petitioner Prospero Hipolito thereafter filed the present
petition for disbarment against Romeo J. Callejo.”^[7]

This case was first assigned to then Assistant Solicitor General,
Eduardo C. Abaya–now Judge of the Court of First Instance–who conducted
hearings on January 21, 1971, February 4, 1971 and February
11, 1971, wherein
only one witness, complainant’s counsel Atty. Jose T. Francisco, was able to
testify.  In a letter dated December
9, 1971, complainant
and his counsel sought the withdrawal of their evidence, both testimonial and
documentary, presented during the hearings, as well as the withdrawal or
dismissal of their Petition for disbarment filed with this Court.^[8] Attached thereto was an affidavit executed
by complainant stating that his petition for dis­barment
against respondent was due to a misunder­standing of the facts; that the
actuations of res­pondent in regard to the complaint in Civil Case No. 12754
were above-board and that the signature of Atty. Rogelio E. Panotes in said
complaint is genuine.^[9] No action was, however, taken on this letter
of complaint.

Thereafter, Solicitor Franklin S. Farolan, to whom the case was subsequently re-assigned, set
the case for hearing on July 6, 1976.  Complainant’s counsel meanwhile filed a Manifestation
reiterating complainant’s letter-request for the withdrawal of the evidence
preserved during the investigation of the case and of the petition for
disbarment and stating further that complainant had already gone to the United
States. 
He then prayed that the hearing set for July 6, 1976 be dispensed with and that complainant’s
letter-request be granted.  Consequently,
only respondent appeared at the hearing on July 6, 1976,
who filed on the same date, a “Manifestation and Urgent Motion” to
grant complainant’s letter-request to withdraw all evidence presented and to
dismiss petition for disbarment.  Said
motion of respondent was not resolved as he was required to present his
evidence ex-parte.

In recommending the dismissal of the petition for disbarment
against respondent, the Solicitor General made the following observations:

“The request of petitioner and his counsel for the withdrawal
of their evidence and for the dismissal of the petition embodied in their
letter dated December 9, 1971
(Exh. ‘32′) coupled by petitioner’s declaration in his
affidavit executed under date of December 20, 1971, that the questioned
signature of Rogelio Panotes appearing at the bottom of the complaint in Civil Case No. 12754 is genuine and
that the actuations of Romeo J. Callejo in this regard are ‘aboveboard’ ineluctably render
the charge against respondent Romeo J. Callejo without merit.  It is of no moment that there was an alleged
report made by one Col. Jose G. Fernandez to the effect that the questioned
signature of Rogelio Panotes was a forgery. 
This alleged report is at best hearsay and has no weight in evidence
considering that said Col. Fernandez was not presented as a witness and the
alleged report was never offered by petitioner as evidence.  Furthermore, it cannot be over-emphasized
that Atty. Rogelio Panotes had firmly avowed that the illegible signature
appearing at the bottom of the Verification of the Complaint in Civil Case No.
12754 is his signature.  Said witness has
con­vincingly explained in his affidavit and supplemental affidavit executed on
March 25, 1970 and July 29, 1976, respectively (Exhs.
‘2-2-D’ and ’34’) that the illegible signature in con­troversy is his genuine
signature whereas his name appearing in peti­tioner’s ‘Motion To Cite Defendant and Atty. Callejo For Contempt, etc.’ in
Civil Case No. Q-14001, has been written by him in the
ordinary way he writes his name.  Against
this unequivocal declaration of Atty. Rogelio Panotes, such alleged report of
forgery even if considered in evi­dence, must necessarily fail.

“As regards the claim of peti­tioner that the said complaint in Civil Case No. 12754
is a falsity in that it is stated in the Verification thereof that Roeglio
Panotes is the ‘the counsel of the plaintiff in the above-entitled case’ when
the real counsel as indicated in said complaint is respondent Romeo J. Callejo,
suf­fice it to say that there is
nothing irregular much less illegal in this respect, since Rogelio Panotes then
was undisputedly a counsel of Mobil. 
Besides, respondent has satisfactorily explained that the phrase in the
above-entitled case’ in the Verifi­cation is but descriptive of the word
‘plaintiff’ immediately preceding the phrase in question.”^[10]

In the absence of convincing proof of mis­conduct on the part of
respondent, as in this case where complainant moved to dismiss the petition for
disbarment and failed to substantiate the charges, and considering the
satisfactory explanation given by respondent concerning the circumstances
surround­ing the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 12745 before the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, We find the recommendation of the Solicitor
General to dismiss the petition to be well taken.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Disbarment against respondent
is hereby DISMISSED.  Let an entry of
this dismissal be spread in the BAR records of Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Record, pp. 1-5.

^[2]
Id., pp. 31-46.

^[3]
Id., pp. 66-83.

^[4]
Id., pp. 86-93.

^[5]
Id., p. 85.

^[6]
Id., pp. 105-117.

^[7]
Report and Recommendation, Records, pp. 110-115.

^[8]
Exhibit 32 for respondent.

^[9]
Exhibit 32-A for respondent.

^[10]
Report and Recommendation, supra, pp. 115-116.