OCA CIRCULAR NO. 92-2004, August 16, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated April 14,
2004 in Administrative Case No. 5161, entitled “Isidra Ting-Dumali vs.
Arty. Rolando S. Torres”, to wit

“In a Complaint-Affidavit^[1]
filed on 22 October 1999 with this Court, complainant Isidra
Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres with presentation
of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to advise
against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the
purpose of profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a ;
lawyer and the canons of legal and judicial ethics.

The complainant is one of the six children of the
late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting. Her siblings are
Marcelina T. Rivera; Miriam T. Sana; Felicisima T.Torres, who is married
to herein respondent; Vicente Ting, Jr.; and Eliseo Ting.

Their parents died intestate and left several parcels of land, to wit:

a) One half of Lot 1586 of the San Francisco de
Malabon Estate, containing an area of 43,908 square meters more or less,
and covered at that time by TCT No. (T-6203) RT-19151 of the Registry
of Deeds of Cavite;

b) Lot 1603 of the San Francisco de Malabon
Estate, containing an area of 16.073 square meters, more or less, and
covered at that time by TCT No. (T-6425) RT-7688 of the Registry of
Deeds of Cavite.

According to the complainant, the respondent took
advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and used his
profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if it
involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. She
attributes to the respondent the following acts or omissions:

In his Comment,^[2]
the respondent denies the allegations of the complaint and asserts that
he did not take advantage of his profession to deprive any of the
co-heirs of his wife of the estate left by his parents-in-law.

Insofar as Lot 1586 is concerned, the respondent
affirms that Felicisima and Miriam were not motivated by any desire to
solely profit from the sale. Neither can he be faulted by the execution
of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17 March 1995 involving
Lot 1603 because he had no part in the execution of the document. All
the while he believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had already
agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. If ever complainant’s
signature was affixed on the document, it was done in good faith.

The respondent admits that he was the counsel of
Marcelina Ting Rivera, et al., in LRC Case No. 5964 for the
reconstitution of TCT No. T-1S69. The false testimony of
Marceliaa in that case that she and Felicisima were the only children of
spouses Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante could not be faulted on him
because such was a clear oversight. Moreover, the sale of Lot 1605 to
Antel Holdings, Inc., was the decision of Marcelina and his wife. His
conformity through his signature was pro-form a because the property was
a paraphemal property of Marcelina and his wife. Anent his alleged
gross and false misrepresentation that the order of reconstitution would
be released by the end of November 1996, suffice it to say that the
assurance was made by the Clerk of Court, Mr. Rosauro Morabe. Besides,
petitions for reconstitution are usually uncontested and granted by
courts.

Finally, the respondent believes that complainant intended to harass him in bombarding him with numerous lawsuits, i.e., this
administrative case; Civil Case No. TM-855 for “Annulment of Documents,
Titles, and Reconveyance plus Damages”; and a criminal case for Estafa
and Falsification of Public Documents.

In her reply, the complainant denies the presence of toka
or verbal will allegedly made by her mother and allegedly implemented
by their eldest brother Eiiseo in view of the following circumstances:
(1) her mother met a sudden death in 1967; and partition of the
properties in total disregard of their father was morally reprehensible,
since the latter was still alive; (2) when their mother died, four of
the siblings were still minors including respondent’s wife herself; (3)
on 5 February 2000, Eliseo wrote his siblings, in response to the
previous letter of Felicisiraa, Marcelina, and Miriam, denying the
existence of a toka. She further states that the respondent
was not merely a passive onlooker but, as he admitted, the administrator
of the properties of the Ting spouses.

On 14 June 2000 , this Court referred the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation or decision.^[3]

On 9 January 2003 , after due hearing and
consideration of the issues presented by both parties, Investigating
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the IBP found the actuations of the respondent to be violative of Rules
1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Thus she recommended that the respondent be
disbarred from the practice of law.^[4]

In its Resolution No. XV-2003-333^[5]
of 21 June 2003, the Board of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted
Commissioner San Juan’s report, but reduced the penalty to suspension
from the practice of law for six years.

We fully agree with the Investigating
Commissioner in her findings of facts and conclusion of culpability. The
respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally
unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal
profession. In his long years as a lawyer, he must have forgotten his
sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once again that the Court inculcate
in the hearts of all lawyers that pledge; thus:

LAWYER’S OATH

 

I, ………………….. , do solemnly swear that 1 will

maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; i will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

SO HELP ME GOD.

This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in
solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice is
not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten
afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust
that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By swearing
the lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law,
as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of
justice.^[6] This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

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

Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

. . .

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.

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

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to
be misled by any artifice.

All of these underscore the role of a lawyer as
the vanguard of our legal system. When the respondent took the oath as a
member of the legal profession, he made a solemn promise to so stand by
his pledge. In this covenant, respondent miserably failed.

The records show that Felicisima and Miriam
stated in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11 November 1986
that they are the children of Julita Reynante and thus adjudicated only
between them Lot No. 1586 to the exclusion of their other siblings.^[7]
There was concealment of the fact that there were other compulsory
heirs to the estate of the deceased. Significantly, the respondent is
the brother-in-law of complainant. Being married to complainant’s
sister, he knew of his wife’s siblings. In fact, he declared that the
complainant stayed with them while she was in the Philippines.^[8]
Yet, the respondent presented that document to the Register of Deeds of
General Trias, Cavite , to effect the transfer of the title of the lot
in question in the name of his wife and his sister-in-law Miriam.

It also bears noting that the respondent was consulted^[9] regarding the falsification of complainant’s signature in the Extrajudicial Settlement^[10]
dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603, which contains a purported
waiver by the complainant of her right over the property. Marcelina
admitted that she signed
complainant’s name in that document.^[11]
Such act of counterfeiting the complainant’s signature to make
it appear that the complainant had participated in the execution of that
document is tantamount to falsification of a public document.^[12]

Instead of advising Marcelina to secure a written special power of attorney and against committing falsification, he presented^[13] such document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a new title for the lot in favor if Marcelina and his wife.^[14]
He himself, therefore, may also be held liable for knowingly using a
falsified document to the damage of the complainant and her other
co-heirs.^[15] Notably, he also admitted in an affidavit dated 22 May 1995 that he prepared the legal documents for the transfer of Lot 1603.^[16]

Respondent did not advise his wife and his
sisters-in-law from doing acts which are contrary to law. He must have
kept in mind the first and foremost duty of a lawyer, which is to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines , uphold the
Constitution, and obey the laws of the land. The Code of Professional
Responsibility underscores the primacy of such duty by providing as its
canon that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land, and promote respect for law ?nd legal processes.^[17]
For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to
which society has entrusted the administration of law and the
dispensation of justice.^[18] As such, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate.^[19] He should not, therefore, engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.^[20] He makes himself unfit to remain’ in the profession who commits any such unbecoming act or conduct.^[21]

Respondent’s argument that the non-declaration by
his wife and his sister-in-law Marcelina of the other siblings in LRC
Rec. No. 5964 for the reconstitution of title involving Lot 1605 was a
mere oversight does not deserve credence in view of the following
circumstances: First, the petition clearly names only
Felicisima and Marcelina as the petitioners when there are six siblings
who were heirs of the unpartitioned lot.^[22] Second during
the hearing of said case when the respondent asked
Marcelina whether she has brothers and sisters other
than Felicisima, the latter said none. The transcript of that hearing
reads:

ATTY. TORRES:
Q	Madame Witness, are you the only child or daughter of the deceased Sps. Vicente Ting, Jr. and Julita Reynante?
WITNESS:
A	No sir, we are two, Felicisima Torres and I.
Q	Do you have other brothers and sisters?[23]
A	None, sir.

The respondent allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony^[24] in court, and he never corrected the same despite full knowledge of the true facts and circumstances of the case.^[25] Moreover, in knowingly offering in evidence such false testimony, he himself may be punished as guilty of false testimony.^[26]

Moreover, under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the
court. He shall “not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice.”^[27] This Rule was
clearly and openly violated by the respondent when he permitted
Marcelina to falsely testify that she had no siblings aside from
Felicisima and when he offered such testimony in the petition for re
constitution of the title involving Lot 1605.

The respondent must have forgotten that as an
attorney he is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the
administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to
advance its cause. For this reason, any act on his part that obstructs
and impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and
justifies disciplinary action against him.^[28]

It may not be amiss to mention that to further
support the re constitution, he offered in evidence an Affidavit of
Loss, which was executed by Marcelina and notarized by him. During the
hearing of this administrative case, Marcelina admitted that her
statement in that affidavit that the title was in her possession was
false, as she was never in possession of the title and would not,^[29] therefore, know that the same was lost.

Moreover, in a letter dated 20 November 1996 addressed to a certain Mrs. Ong, the
respondent requested the release of 50% of the remaining balance for
the sale of Lot 1605, relaying to Antel Holdings, Inc., through Mrs. Ong
that he was assured by the Clerk of Court that the order directing the
reconstitution of title for Lot 1605 would be released within the month.^[30]
Respondent’s information was misleading because he presented evidence
only on 12 August 1997, or almost a year after he sent the letter.^[31] Such act, therefore, shows lack of candor and honesty on the part of the respondent.

Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral
flaws and doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession.
They constitute gross misconduct for which he may be disbarred or
suspended pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:

Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore.
— A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission
to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

In the determination of the imposable disciplinary
sanction against an erring lawyer, we take into account the primary
purpose of disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this
important function shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in
whom courts and clients may repose confidence.^[32]
While the assessment of what sanction may be imposed is primarily
addressed to our sound discretion, the sanction should neither be
arbitrary or despotic, not motivated by personal animosity or prejudice.
Rather, it should ever be controlled by the imperative need to
scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar.^[33]

Thus, the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear
cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. We will not
hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers where the evidence calls for it.^[34]
Verily, given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this
case, we find that respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the severance
of his privilege to practice law for life, and we therefore adopt the
penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent
Arty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the
lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership
in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice
of law, and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys,
effective immediately.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, which shall forthwith record it in the personal files of the
respondent; all the courts of the Philippines; the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its
Chapters; and all administrative and quasi- judicial agencies of the
Republic of the Philippines.”

Copy of the resolution was received by respondent on 3 May 2004.
The respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the said resolution was
denied with finality on 29 June 2004.

__16__ August 2004.

 ^[2]
Rollo, 47-51.

 ^[3] Rollo, 209.

 ^[4] Per the Report and
Recommendation of Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline; Rollo, unpaginated.

 ^[5] Notice of
Resolution signed by Jaime M. Vibar, National Secretary, IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline Board of Governors; Rollo, unpaginated.

 ^[6] Radjaie v. Alovera, AC. No. 4748, 4 August 2000 , 337 SCRA244, 255-256.

 ^[7] Exhibit V Rollo,43.

 ^[8] TSN, 25 September 2001 ,76-78.

 ^[9] TSN, 30 May 2002, 20-21.

 ^[10] Art. 172(1), in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.

 ^[11] TSN, 4 April 2002 , 37-38; TSN, 11 April 2002 , 28-29.

 ^[12] Art. 172(1), in relation to Art 171 .Revised Penal Code.

 ^[13] Exh, “L-l,” Rollo,43.

 ^[14] Exh. “D-3,” Rollo.40.

 ^[15] Art. 172, last paragraph, in relation to Art 171, Revised Penal Code.

 ^[16] Exh.”R-l,”Original Records (OR), Vol. 11,65.

 ^[17] Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility.

 ^[18] RUBENE. AGPALO,
LEGAL ETHICS 61 (6tfaed 1997), citing Comments of the IBP Committee the
drafted the Code of Professional Responsibility, pp. 1 -2 (1980).

 ^[19] Id., 62.

 ^[20] Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility, Collantes v. Renomeron, AC. No. 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 584.

 ^[21] In re Gutierrez, 115Phil. 647, 651 (1962).

 ^[22] Exh. “J,” Rollo, 11.

 ^[23] Exh. “J-2,” Rolio, 22.

 ^[24] Art, 182, Revised Penal Code.

 ^[25]TSN, 16 May 2002,33-35.

 ^[26] Art. 184, Revised Penal Code.

 ^[27] Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility.

 ^[28] People v. Jardm, 209 Phil. 134,142 (1983).

 ^[29]
TSN, 16 May 2002,13-23.

 ^[30]
Exh. “K,” Rollo,39.

 ^[31] TSN, 25 September 2001 ,72.

 ^[32] In re MacDougall, 3 Phil. 70,78 (1903).

 ^[33] In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970 ,31 SCRA562.602.

 ^[34] Garcia v. Manuel, AC. No. 5811, 20 January 2003.