MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. A.C. No. 6166
CENIZA,
Complainant, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura, and
Peralta, JJ.
ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA,
Respondent. Promulgated:
October 2, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
In
a verified complaint[1]
dated July 25, 2003 filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Maria Earl
Beverly C. Ceniza charged Atty. Vivian G. Rubia with grave misconduct, gross
ignorance of the law and falsification of public documents.
The
facts of the case are as follows:
On
May 3, 2002, complainant sought the legal services of the respondent in regard
to the share of her mother-in-law in the estate of her husband Carlos
Ceniza. As she had no money to pay for
attorney’s fees since her mother-in-law would arrive from the
Further,
complainant alleged that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law
for intending to file the complaint in Davao del Sur when the properties to be
recovered were located in Koronadal, South Cotabato and Malungon,
In
her comment, respondent assailed the personality of the complainant to institute
the administrative complaint for disbarment as she was not a party to the
action for partition and recovery of ownership/possession. As such, her allegations in the
administrative complaint were all hearsay, self-serving and
unsubstantiated. Further, the charge of
forgery of the Affidavit of Loss was belied by the March 3, 2003 decision of
the trial court, wherein Carlito C. Ceniza affirmed his statements in the said
affidavit when he was called to testify.[4]
On February 2, 2004, the Court
resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (
On
April 29, 2004, respondent filed a Supplemental Comment explaining the rubber
stamped “RECEIVED” on the complaint.
According to her, when her staff Jan Kirt Lester Soledad was at the
Meanwhile,
on November 7, 2005, respondent filed a Manifestation with Urgent Motion
praying that the administrative complaint be likewise dismissed in view of the
dismissal of the criminal case due to complainant’s apparent lack of interest
to prosecute.
On
January 19, 2007, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be found guilty of falsification of public document and be meted the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years. The report reads in part, as follows:
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action, where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. It involved no private interest. The complainant or person who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s misconduct is in no sense a party and has generally no interest in its outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. It affords no redress for private grievance. (Tejan v. Cusi, 57 SCRA 154)
Prescinding from the aforequoted ruling, it is therefore irrelevant and immaterial if herein complainant is not a party to the subject civil complaint prepared by the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge has been proven.
On the payment of the acceptance fee in the amount of P32,000.00, respondent’s contention that she acted as guarantor of Carlos Ceniza, complainant’s husband, when he borrowed money from a money lender, Domingo Natavio, the amount representing the acceptance, does not inspire belief. The promissory note dated May 3, 2002, appended as Annex “A” of the complaint-affidavit eloquently shows that consistent with the complainant’s allegation, she was made to borrow said amount to be paid as respondent’s acceptance fee. It bears stress that the date of the promissory note is the same date when respondent’s services were engaged leading to the preparation of the subject civil complaint. Complainant’s allegation is further enhanced by the fact that such promissory note was even notarized by the respondent.
On the alleged filing of the subject
civil complaint, it is undisputed that the same was not filed before the Office
of the Clerk of Court,
It bears stress that a copy of the subject civil complaint was obtained by complainant from the respondent herself who tried to impress upon the former that contrary to her suspicion, the subject civil complaint was already filed in court. However, inquiry made by the complainant shows otherwise.
Respondent’s contention that after one copy of the complaint was already stamped by court personnel in preparation for receiving the same and entering in the court’s docket, she caused it to be withdrawn after realizing that the same lacked certain attachments, is bereft of merit.
In the first place, respondent miserably failed to mention these lacking attachments that allegedly caused the withdrawal of the complaint. Secondly, and assuming arguendo that the withdrawal was due to lacking attachments, how come the same was not filed in the next office day complete with attachments. And lastly, the Certification of the Clerk of Court clearly states that Civil Case No. 4188 is not the case of Mercedes Callejo vda. De Ceniza, et al. vs. Charlotte Ceniza, et al.
x x x x
The fact that the City Prosecutor’s Office of Digos, upon motion for reconsideration of the respondent, dismissed a similar complaint filed by herein complainant will not in anyway affect the above captioned administrative complaint.
The pendency of a criminal action against the respondent, from the facts of which the disciplinary proceeding is predicated, does not pose prejudicial question to the resolution of the issues in the disbarment case. (Calo vs. Degano, 20 SCRA 447) His conviction is not necessary to hold the lawyer administratively liable because the two proceedings and their objectives are different and it is not sound public policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before the court act on a complaint against a lawyer as it may emasculate the disciplinary power of the court. (In re Brillantes, 76 SCRA 1) Nor is his acquittal, by this fact alone, a bar to an administrative complaint against him. (Piatt vs. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350).
The other allegations in the complaint about ignorance of the law are found to be without basis.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that herein respondent Atty. Vivian C. Rubia, be found guilty of the charge of falsification of public document and be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.
On May 31, 2007, the Board of
Governors of the IBP issued a Resolution adopting the Investigating Commissioner’s
recommendation with modification, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2007-237
Adm. Case No. 6166
Maria Earl Beverly C. Ceniza vs.
Atty. Vivian G. Rubia
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent’s falsification of public document, Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is hereby DISBARRED.
However,
in its December 11, 2008 Resolution, the Board of Governors reconsidered its
May 31, 2007 Resolution by reducing the recommended penalty of disbarment to
five years suspension from the practice of law, thus:
RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2008-715
Adm. Case No. 6166
Maria Earl Beverly C. Ceniza vs.
Atty. Vivian G. Rubia
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED the Recommendation of the Board of Governors First Division of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with modification, that Resolution RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2007-237 of the Board of Governors dated 31 May 2007 recommending the Disbarment of Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is reduced to Five (5) years Suspension from the practice of law.
On
April 20, 2009, the
Complainant
seeks the disbarment of respondent from the practice of law for gross
misconduct, ignorance of the law and for falsification of public document. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its
disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by
clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.[5]
The
sole issue in this case is whether or not there is preponderant evidence to
warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against the respondent.
In
accusing respondent of falsification of public document, complainant alleged
that respondent misrepresented to her that the complaint was already filed in
court, when in fact, upon verification with the
A perusal of the records shows that
complainant’s evidence consists solely of her Affidavit-Complaint and the
annexes attached therewith. She did not
appear in all the mandatory conferences set by the investigating commissioner
in order to give respondent the chance to test the veracity of her
assertions. It is one thing to allege
gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or falsification of public document and
another to demonstrate by evidence the specific acts constituting the same.
Indeed,
complainant has no way of knowing the surrounding circumstances behind the
filing of the complaint by respondent’s staff because she was not present when
the same was filed with the trial court. Complainant failed to disprove by
preponderant evidence respondent’s claim that the case was not filed but was in
fact withdrawn after it was stamped with “RECEIVED” and assigned with a docket
number. We find this explanation
satisfactory and plausible considering that the stamp did not bear the signature
of the receiving court personnel, which is normally done when pleadings are
received by the court.
Further,
the certification of the
Thus,
for lack of preponderant evidence, the investigating commissioner’s ruling that
respondent was guilty of falsification of public document, as adopted by the
However,
we find that respondent committed some acts for which she should be disciplined
or administratively sanctioned.
We find nothing illegal or
reprehensible in respondent’s act of charging an acceptance fee of P32,000.00,
which amount appears to be reasonable under the circumstances. The impropriety lies in the fact that she
suggested that complainant borrow money from Domingo Natavio for the payment
thereof. This act impresses upon the
Court that respondent would do nothing to the cause of complainant’s
mother-in-law unless payment of the acceptance fee is made. Her duty to render legal services to her
client with competence and diligence should not depend on the payment of
acceptance fee, which was in this case promised to be paid upon the arrival of
complainant’s mother-in-law in June 2002, or barely a month after respondent
accepted the case.
Respondent’s transgression is
compounded further when she severed the lawyer-client relationship due to
overwhelming workload demanded by her new employer Nakayama Group of Companies,
which constrained her to return the money received as well as the records of
the case, thereby leaving her client with no representation. Standing alone,
heavy workload is not sufficient reason for the withdrawal of her services.
Moreover, respondent failed to
maintain an open line of communication with her client regarding the status of
their complaint.
Clearly, respondent violated the
Lawyer’s Oath which imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no
man for money or malice, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, and Canon 22 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility,
thus:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
x x x x
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE
When a lawyer accepts to handle a
case, whether for a fee or gratis et
amore, he undertakes to give his utmost attention, skill and competence to
it, regardless of its significance.
Thus, his client, whether rich or poor, has the right to expect that he
will discharge his duties diligently and exert his best efforts, learning and
ability to prosecute or defend his (client’s) cause with reasonable
dispatch. Failure to fulfill his duties
will subject him to grave administrative liability as a member of the Bar. For the overriding need to maintain the
faith and confidence of the people in the legal profession demands that an
erring lawyer should be sanctioned.[6]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
respondent Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is found GUILTY
of violation of Rule 18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that similar infractions
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let
all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice