Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
JOHN
CHRISTEN S. HEGNA,
Complainant, - versus - ATTY. GOERING
G.C. PADERANGA, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 5955 Present:
Ynares-Santiago,
J., Chairperson, chico-nazario, VELASCO, JR., nachura, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September 8,
2009
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x D E C I S
I O N PERALTA, J.: |
|
Before
this Court is a letter-complaint[1]
dated June 3, 2002, filed by complainant John Christen S. Hegna with the Office
of the Bar Confidant (OBC) against respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga for
deliberately falsifying documents, which caused delay in the execution of the
decision rendered by the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Branch 8,
Cebu City, in Civil Case No. R-45146, entitled John Hegna v. Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo Panaguinip.
Herein
complainant was the lessee of a portion of Lot No. 5529, situated at Barangay
Quiot Pardo, P3,000.00 per year,
or P250.00 per month.
On
When
therein defendants failed to file their Answer, complainant filed a motion that
judgment be rendered in default.
On December 21, 2001, the MTCC
rendered a Decision in favor of complainant, ordering therein defendants to
vacate the leased premises and to pay complainant compensatory damages for illegal
occupation and use of the subject property, as well as attorney’s fees and
costs of suit. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
this Court directs judgment against Defendants MR. & MRS. ELISEO PANAGUINIP
and directs them to vacate Lot No. 5529 over the portion in an area of 1,596
square meters thereof, as leased to herein Plaintiff, situated at Barangay
Quiot Pardo, Cebu City, and to pay Plaintiff the sum of PESOS: ONE THOUSAND (P1,000)
per month from the second week of March 1996 until the present date by way of
compensatory damages for the illegal occupation and use of the contested
property, subject to 12% annual legal interest until fully paid, and thereafter
pay the same amount per month until they vacate the subject property hereof,
and to further pay Plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 by way of Attorney’s
Fees, and the costs of this suit.
SO
ORDERED.[3]
On
On
On
Subsequently,
respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim[5]
dated
On
In
an Order[10] dated
In
a letter dated
On
March 14, 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint[12]
for falsification of public documents against respondent; false testimony and
perjury against therein defendants; and falsification under paragraph 6, Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code against Atty. Elena Marie Madarang, notary
public, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City. Anent the
complaint against respondent, complainant averred that the third-party claim
was full of irregularities, to wit: (a) the Deed of Absolute Sale involving Lot
No. 3653-D-1, covered by TCT No. T-11127, dated November 27, 2001, had no
record of transfer in the Register of Deeds of Cebu City; (b) the registration
of the motor vehicle allegedly owned by respondent by virtue of the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated December 21, 2001 did not reflect any change of ownership
from May 4, 2001; (c) the two Deeds of Absolute Sale dated November 27, 2001
and December 21, 2001 showed that both were notarized under Series of 2000 of
the notary public; (d) Notarial Register No. 177 on page 37, Book II showed
erasures and tampering done by substituting the intended entry of Joint
Affidavit of Two Disinterested Person to a Deed of Absolute Sale under the
names of the spouses Eliseo and Ma. Teresa Panaguinip, therein defendants,
representing the sale of Lot No. 3653-D-1 under TCT No. 11127; and Notarial
Register No. 188 on Page 39, Book II of Atty. Madarang also had tampering and
erasures, as the entry of Affidavit of Loss was substituted with a Deed of
Absolute Sale under the name of Ma. Teresa Panaguinip representing the sale of
the FUSO (Canter series); and (e) the Community Tax Certificate number
appearing in both Deeds of Absolute Sale was actually issued to another person,
not to therein defendant Ma. Teresa Panaguinip.
On
In
his Comment[14] dated
In
a Resolution[15] dated
On
On
III. FINDINGS:
Based on the resolution of the City
Prosecutor’s office in
According
to the Respondent, it was perfectly normal for him to obtain properties without
registering the same under his own name. In his Position Paper, he even cited
several other transactions where he merely possessed Deeds of Sale but not
Certification of Registration or Transfer Certificates of Title. He alleged
that for ESTATE PLANNING purposes, he intentionally left these properties in
the name of the previous owner. The alleged discrepancies in the notarization
were fully explained as well. The notary public explained that the erasures in
her Notarial Register were made to correct mistakes so that entries will speak
the truth. These corrections include the entries under entry number 177 to
indicate the correct entry which was the Deed of
Not
necessarily disagreeing with the findings of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City,
the Resolution dismissing the case for falsification is not entirely
convincing. There were certainly evidentiary matters which could have been
better addressed by a judge, namely, the affidavit of the secretary of the
notary public, the explanation in the incorrect entries in notarial register,
the affidavit of the two (2) witnesses who sought the cancellation of their
original affidavit, and the explanation of Paderanga himself regarding the
difference in the dates.
Complainant
is a layman who filed his own Position Paper unaided by counsel while
Respondent is a lawyer. Nevertheless, Complainant managed to present one (1)
piece of evidence not squarely addressed by Respondent Paderanga: the letter
handwritten by Respondent’s clients, written in Cebuano, asking the Complainant
for mercy and forgiveness in relation to the forcible entry case. Such letter
was no longer necessary if indeed there was a GENUINE transfer of ownership of
properties owned by the Panaguinip spouses to their lawyer, Respondent
Paderanga. This letter, attached to the Complaint, was never refuted in any way
by Respondent Paderanga who may have skirted the issue by inadvertence or by
design. The letter dated
Moreover,
Complainant alleged that Respondent invited him consecutive times after the
issuance of the writ of execution in the lower court; the first was at the
Majestic Restaurant, the second was at Club Cebu at Waterfront Hotel. There was
an offer to settle the judgment award of P100,000. During the first
meeting, the offer was P3,000, on the second meeting, this time with the
Panaguinip spouses, the offer was P10,000. When Complainant refused to
settle with Respondent, he received a copy of the Affidavit of Third-Party
Claim a few days later.
The
parties did not stipulate this particular issue; however, this Commissioner
feels that for the final disposition of this case, it is worthy to mention
Article 1491 of the Civil Code. It specifically states that:
Art.
1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
x x x
(5) Justices,
judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and
other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the
property and rights in litigations or levied upon execution before the court
within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective
functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and
shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.
x x x
This
is a classic case where a lawyer acquired the interests of his client in
certain properties subject for execution. Regardless of the court’s apparent
lack of jurisdiction, Respondent Paderanga acquired the two (2) matters subject
for execution in the forcible entry case in violation of [the] Canon of Legal
Ethics. A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest
or litigation over it in court, but also the moment that becomes subject to the
judicial action of the judge. x x x
In
all likelihood, although Complainant failed to get a favorable resolution from
the City Prosecutor’s office in
It
is worthy to note that the proceedings before the prosecutor’s office did not
take into consideration the handwritten letter from the Panaguinip spouses. For
whatever reason, Complainant did not present such letter, which if he did, the
prosecutor may come up with a different resolution.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
While
Complainant cannot fully prove the existence of falsity in the execution
of the Affidavit of Third Party Claim, this Commissioner is convinced that
there was indeed an anomaly which constitutes a violation of the Canons of
Professional Responsibility.
A
lawyer ought to have known that he cannot acquire the property of his client
which is in litigation. x x x Respondent necessitates a heavy penalty since the
circumstances surrounding the transfer of ownership of properties tend to indicate
an anomalous transfer aimed to subvert the proper administration of justice.
The numerous discrepancies in the transfer document, some dismissed as clerical
errors and other explained by incredulous stories by way of affidavits,
compounded by the letter left uncontested by Respondent Paderanga, inevitably
lead a rational person to conclude that Paderanga may not have acquired the
properties prior to the judicial action of execution. Even if the City
Prosecutor found no prima facie case of falsification, this Commissioner finds
substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Respondent Paderanga
committed an ethical violation and should be meted the penalty of suspension of
five (5) years from the practice of law.[19]
In
a Resolution dated
x x x finding
the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and rules, and considering that a lawyer ought to know that he cannot
acquire the property of his client which is in litigation, Atty. Goering
Paderanga is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for one (1) year.[20]
On
In a Resolution dated
On
Under
Section 27 of Rule 138[21]
of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any
of the following grounds: (1) deceit;
(2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s
oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7)
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. In the
present case, the Court finds respondent administratively liable for engaging
in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
Although respondent denied having
acted as counsel for therein defendants, the Spouses Panaguinip, in the
forcible entry case filed by complainant, his involvement in the said case was
still highly suspect. After the writ of execution had been issued on P3,000.00, which he
refused as he had already spent P10,000.00 on court expenses. On their
second meeting, the offer had been raised to P25,000.00, which again
complainant declined, as the latter had, at that time, spent P25,000.00.
Complainant maintained that it was only after said meetings had transpired that
he received the affidavit of a third-party claim executed by respondent,
stating that the latter was the owner of the property and motor vehicle. On the
other hand, respondent claimed that the meetings took place in April 2002,
after he had filed a third-party claim.
Had
respondent been the rightful owner of a parcel of land and motor vehicle that
were still registered in the name of defendants-spouses, he should have
immediately disclosed such fact immediately and filed a third- party claim, as
time was of the essence. Moreover, in
their letter dated
Based
on the foregoing, the Court is more inclined to believe that when complainant
and defendants-spouses failed to reach an agreement, respondent came forward as
a third-party claimant to prevent the levy and execution of said properties.
He, therefore, violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[23]
which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. Under this rule,
conduct has been construed not to pertain exclusively to the performance of a
lawyer’s professional duties.[24]
In previous cases,[25]
the Court has held that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor; or unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court.
Notably, in the falsification case earlier filed,
complainant was able to cite several irregularities in the documents evidencing
the deeds of sale in question: the non-registration by respondent of the sale
transactions; a Community Tax Certificate number appearing on said deeds which
was different from that issued to defendant Ma. Teresa Panaguinip; and the
erasures of the entries pertaining to said deeds from the Notarial Register.
Of
these irregularities, only one can directly be attributable to respondent – his
non-registration of the sale transaction.
He argues that the sales were valid despite non-registration, and
maintained that it was perfectly normal and regular for a lawyer like him to
choose not to register and cause the transfer of title of the land and the FUSO
jeepney after the execution of the Deeds of Sale, so the transactions would not
appear in the records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the City Assessor or
the Register of Deeds, on the Land Registration Office. He added that he had
also bought four lots, which had not yet been transferred to his name, for
estate planning or speculation purposes. He claimed that he found it legally
wise not to immediately register after buying so that he would not pay for the
expenses of the sale and transfer twice, once he decided to sell; or place them
in his children’s name, and avoid paying estate and inheritance taxes upon his
death.[26]
While
the act of registration of a document is not necessary in order to give it
legal effect as between the parties, requirements for the recording of the
instruments are designed to prevent frauds and to permit and require the public
to act with the presumption that a recorded instrument exists and is genuine.[27]
However, while the RTC was correct in holding that said omission on
respondent’s part may not be considered falsification, he had shown an intent
to defraud the government, which had the right to collect revenue from him, as
well as from other persons who may have an interest in said properties.
Respondent
violated the Lawyer’s Oath, which mandates that he should support the
Constitution, obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein, and do no falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in
court. Further, he has also failed to live up to the standard set by law that
he should refrain from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.[28]
Respondent’s act of non-registration of the deeds of sale to avoid paying tax
may not be illegal per se; but, as a servant
of the law, a lawyer should make himself an exemplar for others to emulate. The
responsibilities of a lawyer are greater than those of a private citizen. He is
looked up to in the community.[29]
Respondent must have forgotten that a lawyer must refrain from committing acts
which give even a semblance of impropriety to the profession.
In
cases wherein lawyers have similarly engaged in deceitful and dishonest
conduct, the Court has imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law ranging from six (6) months to one (1) year.
In
Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr.,[30]
where therein respondent lawyer filed a complaint for reformation of instrument
to obtain financial gain, and prepared a contract which did not express the
true intention of the parties, he was found guilty of gross misconduct and
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In
Yap-Paras v. Paras,[31]
where therein respondent lawyer applied for free patents over lands owned by
another person and not in the former’s physical possession, he was found guilty
of committing a falsehood in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility and suspended from the practice of law for one (1)
year, with a warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the
future would result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
In the present case, the Investigating Commissioner and
the IBP Board of Governors recommended a penalty of suspension to be imposed
upon respondent for five (5) years and one (1) year, respectively. The Court, however, believes that a penalty
of one (1) year is more commensurate to respondent’s deceitful and dishonest
conduct.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Goering
G.C. Paderanga is found guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct,
and is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for one (1) year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar offense in the future would result in the imposition of a more severe
penalty.
Let
a copy of this Decision be entered into respondent’s record as a member of the
Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
This
Decision shall be immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 3-5.
[2] Cited
in the Amended Complaint dated
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Deed
of Absolute Sale dated
[7] Deed
of Absolute Sale dated
[8] Decision
of the RTC dated
[9] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 107-137.
[10]
[11] Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 78-82.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 247-252. (Citations
omitted.)
[20]
[21] As amended by SC
Resolutions dated
[22] Rollo, p. 217.
[23] Promulgated
by the Supreme Court on
[24] Ronquillo, et al. v. Cezar, A.C. No.
6288,
[25] Id.; Lao v. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1,
2003, 405 SCRA 227, 232; Ong v. Unto, A.C. No. 2417, February 5, 2002,
376 SCRA 152, 160; Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. 1474, January 28, 2000, 323
SCRA 556; Narag v. Narag, A.C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998, 291 SCRA 451; Nakpil
v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998, 286 SCRA 758.
[26] Counter-Affidavit
dated
[27] Maglucot-aw, et al. v. Maglucot, et al.,
G. R. No. 132518, March 28, 2000, 329 SCRA 78.
[28] Code
of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1. Rule 1.02.
[29] Irene Santos-Tan v. Atty. Romeo R. Robiso,
A.C. No. 6383,
[30] A.C.
No. 4914,
[31] A.C.
No. 4947,