CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ, Complainant, -
versus - ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE
RAMOS-VILLALON, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 7084
Present: Quisumbing, j., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR. NACHURA,* and
BRION, JJ. Promulgated: February 27, 2009 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
BRION, J.: |
For our resolution is this administrative case
filed by complainant Conrado G. Fernandez (Fernandez)
against Atty. Maria Angelica P. De Ramos-Villalon (Atty. Villalon). The complainant was the
respondent in Civil Case No. 05-1017, in which
Carlos O. Palacios (Palacios) sought
to nullify a Deed of Donation he purportedly executed in favor of
Fernandez.[1] The respondent in this
administrative action, Atty. Villalon, was Palacios’ counsel in the early part
of the case; she withdrew from the case after her appointment as prosecutor of
A brief summary of Civil
Case No. 05-1017 is in order to put this administrative complaint in proper
context.
Palacios, in his Complaint in Civil Case No. 05-1017, alleged that he was the
owner of a lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 178587
located in Barangay San Lorenzo,
Palacios received information that Fernandez
could help him oppose the syndicate’s petition. Thus, Palacios approached
Fernandez, and they eventually succeeded in causing the withdrawal of LRC Case
No. M-4524, with the assistance of a certain Atty. Augusto P. Jimenez, Jr.. Palacios allegedly agreed to pay Fernandez P2,000,000.00
for the services he rendered in LRC Case No. M-4524.
On
Palacios then employed the services of respondent
Atty. Villalon to file a Complaint for the declaration of nullity of the Deed
of Donation that became the basis for the issuance of a title in Fernandez’
name.[5] This complaint was subsequently
amended to implead Romeo Castro, Atty. Augusto P. Jimenez, Jr., Levy R. De Dios,
and Rosario T. Abobo.[6]
In his Answer, Fernandez claimed that the
transfer of title in his name was proper on account of an existing Deed of
Absolute Sale dated
On
1.
suppressed
and excluded in the Original and Amended Complaint her knowledge about the
existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
2.
used
the fake and spurious Deed of Donation to deceive the court into trying Civil
Case No. 05-1071, the action for the annulment of TCT No. 220869, despite her
knowledge of the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale;
3.
committed
misrepresentations as follows: to verify whether the attached Deed of Absolute
Sale was properly notarized, the respondent Villalon personally inquired before
the notarial section of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
thru a letter-request, whether a record of the deed existed in the said office;
in the letter-request, the respondent misrepresented that there was already a
pending case in the RTC of Makati before November 9, 2005;
4.
refused
to receive the complainant’s Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim so that she
could file on behalf of her client an Amended Complaint without leave of court
and without presenting the Deed of Absolute Sale;
5.
induced
her witness Agnes Heredia (Heredia) to sign a false Affidavit by telling
her that it would only be for purposes of compelling Fernandez to pay
additional sums to her client; however, Atty. Villalon used it as evidence to
frame the complainant Fernandez for her own personal gain;
6. only submitted the Deed of Donation for signature examination and certification by the NBI and intentionally failed to submit the Deed of Absolute Sale.[14]
The
Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. On
There is no sufficient basis to hold
respondent accountable for failure to mention in the Complaint and Amended
Complaint the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute
It cannot be argued
that there was suppression of evidence on the part of the respondent as she is
not the only person who had access or possession of the said Deed of Absolute
Sale. It was a document readily available to the general public through the
Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was fully known to herein
complainant as he was supposed to be a party to the said Deed of Absolute Sale.
In other words, a person cannot possibly
suppress the existence of a document which everyone else, especially the
opposing party-litigant, knows about.
Furthermore,
it is noted that while the letter to the Notarial Office was dated November 9,
it was actually received by said office only on
We also take note
that assuming the respondent had knowledge about (sic) the existence of
the Deed of Absolute Sale before the civil complaint was filed, her role as the
legal counsel is limited by the client’s choice of cause of action. Moreover,
its mere existence as a document is not an affirmation of its validity or due
execution. In other words, the client, possibly believing in the invalidity of
the Deed of Absolute Sale, may have chosen to refute the validity of the
document at a later time when and if its existence is raised. This is a choice
within the discretion of the party-litigant. The opposing party cannot impose
it as a duty upon the other party or his legal counsel. There is, therefore, no
sufficient factual basis to hold respondent accountable in this charge. As it
turns out, respondent’s client claims no consideration was ever given for the
Deed of Absolute Sale and is consequently arguing that said Deed is void.
As for the accusation
that respondent committed misrepresentation in her November 9 letter by stating
that a case had already been filed when in truth no such case is yet pending,
we take note that assuming a misrepresentation was committed, such act does not
attain a degree of materiality or gravity so as to attribute evil malice on the
part of respondent. The intent on the part of respondent remains the same, that
is, to obtain relevant information. We cannot attribute any evil deception in
the said letter considering the surrounding facts especially since a civil
complaint was in fact filed the very next day the letter was sent.
As for the accusation
that respondent refused or failed to receive registered mail matters, such has
not been factually substantiated. The same goes with the accusation that
respondents failed to furnish herein complainant’s lawyer with a copy of the
Amended Complaint.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not commit
any act for which she should be disciplined or administratively sanctioned.
It is therefore recommended that
this CASE BE DISMISSED for lack of merit.[15]
Before
this Court, Fernandez filed a Petition for Review raising the following issues:
1.
whether
Commissioner Funa committed grave abuse of discretion in recommending the
dismissal of the disbarment case against the Respondent;
2.
whether
Commissioner Funa committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to resolve the
matter regarding the affidavit of Heredia, in which she retracted her affidavit
in Civil Case No. 05-1017 and further said that the respondent induced her to
issue a false affidavit by telling her that the said affidavit would only be
used to compel Fernandez to pay additional sums to Palacios.
THE COURT’S RULING
We agree with the
recommendation of IBP Commissioner Funa. The charges against the respondent do
not constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment.
A
lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to be truthful in all his
dealings.[16]
However, this duty does not require that the lawyer advance matters of defense
on behalf of his or her client’s opponent. A lawyer is his or her client’s
advocate; while duty-bound to utter no falsehood, an advocate is not obliged to
build the case for his or her client’s opponent.
The
respondent’s former client, Palacios, approached her to file a complaint for
the annulment of the Deed of Donation.
This was the cause of action chosen by her client. Assuming arguendo that
the respondent knew of the presence of the Deed of Absolute Sale, its
existence, is, indeed, a matter of defense for Fernandez. We cannot fault the
respondent for choosing not to pursue the nullification of the Deed of Absolute
Sale. The respondent alleged that her former client, Palacios, informed her
that the Deed of Absolute Sale was void for lack of consideration. Furthermore,
unlike the Deed of Donation, the Deed of Absolute Sale was not registered in the Registry of Deeds and was not the basis for the
transfer of title of Palacios’ property to Fernandez. Under the
circumstances, it was not unreasonable for a lawyer to conclude, whether
correctly or incorrectly, that the Deed of Absolute Sale was immaterial in
achieving the ultimate goal – the recovery of Palacios’ property.
On the second
issue, the petitioner complains that Commissioner Funa failed to consider
Heredia’s affidavit of retraction.[17] As a rule,
we view retractions with caution; they can be bought and obtained through
threats, intimidation, or monetary consideration.[18]
The better rule is to examine them closely by considering the original, the new
statements and the surrounding circumstances, based on the rules of evidence.[19]
The petitioner
raised the retraction for the first time in his Supplemental to (sic) Reply
to Comment filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant on
In her affidavit of December 11, 2005, Heredia
attested that: 1) Palacios sought her help when a syndicate
attempted to grab his land; 2) she
referred Palacios to the group of Castro, Fernandez, and Jimenez who were then
helping her with her own legal problems; 3) she regretted having referred Palacios
to this group as she herself was later “victimized by the group; 4) they made
her sign blank papers after gaining her trust and confidence, which signed
blanks the group later filled up to make it appear that they bought and paid
for her real property; 5) she terminated the services of this group sometime in
April 2005; 6) she only recently came to know of this group’s modus operandi;
and 7) Palacios eventually became one of the group’s victims.
In her affidavit of
retraction, Heredia basically averred that the statements in the affidavit of
December 11, 2005 were prepared by Villalon who asked her, in the presence of
Palacios, to sign the affidavit; that the affidavit contained lies which she
rejected outright, but Palacios and the respondent convinced her that they
would only use the affidavit to convince Fernandez to give additional sums of
money for Palacios’ property; that Palacios admitted getting a motorcyle from
Fernandez; that Palacios had been paid not less than P6,000,000.00 for
his property; that the respondent and Palacios used her affidavit in the cases
they filed against Fernandez; that this violated their agreement that the
affidavit would only be used in their negotiations to get more money for the
property; that Palacios admitted to her that he executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale with Fernandez; that the execution of the Deed of Donation was his idea;
that Palacios had Fernandez’ signature in the Deed of Donation forged and was
regretting having done so because Fernandez filed various charges, including
perjury, against him; that she executed the affidavit of retraction in the
interest of justice, to tell the truth about the circumstances surrounding the
affidavit of December 11, 2005, to clear her name, to show that she is not part
of the lies concocted by Atty. Villalon and Palacios, and to correct the wrong
that was done by the affidavit of December 11, 2005 to the persons of Conrado
Fernandez, Romeo Castro, and Atty. Augusto Jimenez, Jr.
In the Mandatory
Conference and Hearing held on
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof
rests on the complainant.[22]
Considering the gravity of the penalty of disbarment or suspension as a member
of the Bar, a lawyer may only be disbarred or suspended if there is clear,
convincing, and satisfactory proof that he or she committed transgressions
defined by the rules as grounds to strip him or her of his professional
license.[23]
In
this case, we find no clear evidence we can satisfactorily accept showing that
the respondent improperly induced Heredia to sign the affidavit of
First, the original affidavit and
the retraction stand uncorroborated by any other evidence and, in our view,
stand on the same footing. Neither affidavit
provides clear, convincing and satisfactory proof of what they allege. They cannot therefore stand as meritorious
basis for an accusation against the respondent.
Second, the allegations in both sworn
statements are so contradictory that we can only conclude that Heredia had
grossly lied in either or even in both instruments. We find it incredible that Heredia, as stated
in her affidavit of retraction, vehemently rejected the statements in the first
affidavit, but nevertheless agreed to sign it because it would only be used to aid
Palacios in his negotiations with Fernandez. Effectively, she admitted in her
retraction that she had lied under oath and entered into a conspiracy to extract
additional funds from Fernandez who would not have accepted the demand if they
were falsely made. Why she did what she
said she did is not at all clear from her retraction, which itself was not
convincingly clear on why she was retracting.
For this Court to accept a retraction that raises more questions than
answers, made by a witness of doubtful credibility allegedly for the sake of truth, is beyond the
limits of what this Court can accept.
In these lights, the retraction has no
particular relevance so that the Commissioner’s failure to consider it would matter.
WHEREFORE, the complaint for
Disbarment is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
* Designated additional member of the
Second Division per Special Order No. 571 dated
[1]
Rollo, pp. 41-42.
[2] Petition for Review, p. 2.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 9-21.
[4]
Rollo, p. 11.
[5]
Rollo, supra note 2, pp. 9-21.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 22-40.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 48-54.
[8] Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
[9] Rule 7.03 - 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or mispresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
[12] Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 1-8
[14] See generally, Petition for Review, pp.
6-7.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 241-249.
[16]
Marcelo v. Javier, A.C.
No. 3248.
[17] Rollo, pp. 120-121.
[18] People
v. Navarro, G.R. No. 129566,
[19] Ibid.,
citing People v. Peralta, 237
SCRA 219 (1994); People v. Mindac, 216
SCRA 558 (1992); People v. Clamor, 198
SCRA 642 (1991).
[20] Rollo, pp. 117-119.
[21] Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[22] Berbano
v.
[23] Concepcion v. Fandiño, Jr., A.C. No. 3677,