VICENTE LIM, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTORNEY FRANCISCO G. ANTONIO, RESPONDENT.

The charge imputed to respondent,
a member of the bar, is that he changed his name, without any authority from
the courts, from Paquito Lim Antonio Clemente, as appearing in his birth certificate, to
Francisco G. Antonio. Such an act, complainant contends, was contrary to law.^[1]

Respondent was required
to answer. He was quite categorical in such answer that at no
time had he used an alias and that, therefore, he had not violated the Act in
question. Much less had he committed falsi­fication of public documents. He pointed out that his correct surname of
Antonio was likewise included in his birth certificate, a photostatic copy of which was en­closed. Submitted
likewise was his diploma from Masbate High School in
1953; his certificate of confernment of Bachelor of
Business Administration at the University of the East in 1956; his certificate
of conferment of Bachelor of Laws from the University of the East in 1961; his official transcript of record from the University of the East; a
certification from the Board of Examiners of the Bureau of Civil Service as a
registered Certified Public Accountant dated July 22, 1957; and lastly, his
certification from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court of his admission to
the bar in 1962. In all such annexes, the surname mentioned was that of Antonio.
He contended that no court order was required because the change of
surname amounted to correction of errors in the school records, pointing out
that the court order for change or correction of entry must be in connection
with that appearing in the civil register. He explained why in his birth
certificate the nick­name Paquito was used rather
than the correct appella­tion. No question, according to him, can be raised as
to his using the correct name Francisco from birth in all his public or private
dealings. He made reference to a previous case, Administrative Case No. 848,
which was filed by the same complainant and based on the same evidence. This
Court, according to him, dismissed the case in a resolution dated September 30, 1971. The prayer was for
the dismissal of the complaint. A reply was required from complainant. It was
submitted. Thereafter the case was referred to the Solicitor General for
investigation, report and recommendation.

In the Report of
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza,^[2] submitted on July 18, 1983, the following appears: “Actually, this
is a second case for disbarment filed by the same complainant against the same
respondent.”^[3] The previous complaint against respondent
was that he is a Chinese citizen and therefore disqualified to be a
member of the bar. This Court
dismissed the case on September 30,
1971. The Report further stated that he was likewise accused of
violating Common­wealth Act No. 142 before the City Court of Manila in Criminal
Case No. E-148817, which case was dismissed by Judge Antonio Padua Paredes in a decision dated June 4, 1974. It turned out that the principal prosecution
witness in such case was the complainant. It was he who was also responsible
for filing Criminal Case No. 307 before the Court of First Instance of Masbate again for an alleged violation of the same Act. On August 5, 1974, the Court of First
Instance of Masbate, granted a motion to quash. His persistence in harassing is
thus quite evident.

Finally, the Report made
clear why there is justification to the allegation of respondent “that
complainant has been motivated by ‘revenge and bad faith.’” ^[4] For respondent was the
private prosecutor for the falsification of a public document in which the
complainant was the accused, the result being the conviction of complainant,
and in another case, also for falsification of a public document, with the same
result.^[5] Moreover, when the complainant was the
adverse party, it was respon­dent who was the defense counsel.

The Solicitor General concluded: “It is clear from all the
foregoing that there is no basis in proceeding against respondent.”^[6]

The Report recommended the dismissal of the complaint. It did not
stop there. The Report also called for complainant being admonished. Dismissal
of the complaint is warranted. Admonition, however, is too mild a response for
the irresponsible conduct of complainant.

The dignity and the honor of the profession require that acts
unworthy of membership in the bar should be visited with the appropriate
penalty. The charge against respondent is of a serious character. If in fact
there was such a violation of the law as charged, he should be duly penalized.
It is quite clear, however, that the complaint is unfounded. It was the product
of ill-will, the desire of complainant to avenge himself.
It certainly was not made in good faith. If it were so, its dismissal would
have sufficed. To repeat, such is not
the case. As the Report made clear, the complaint arose from a feeling of
resentment, even of hate. To allow complainant to trifle with the Court,
to make use of the judicial process as an instrument of retaliation, would be a
reflection on the rule of law. He should be held to strict accountability, considering that
this is his second attempt. Such stubbornness compounds the gravity of his
offense. He appears to be incorrigible.
At the very least, therefore, he should be censured.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Attorney Francisco G. Antonio is dismissed
and complainant Vicente Lim is
hereby censured.

Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ.,
concur.

Makasiar, J., Respondent may sue complainant for
damages.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

^[1]
According to Section 1, Republic Act No. 6085 (1969), amending Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (1936): “Except as a pseudonym, solely for
literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in
athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no
person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered
at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was
baptized for the first time, or, in case of an alien, with which he was
registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as
may have been authorized by a competent court: Provided, That
persons, whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one
year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in the
civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name
and one or two surnames.”

^[2]
He was assisted by Asst. Solicitor General Eduardo Montenegro and Solicitor Oswaldo D. Agcaoili.

^[3]
Report, 2.

^[4]
Ibid, 8.

^[5]
Ibid, citing Exhibits 12 and 13 of Answer of Respondent.

^[6]
Ibid, 7.