Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
JESSIE R. DE Complainant,
-versus - ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 8620 Present: CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: January
12, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
This administrative case, which Jessie
R. De
Antecedents
On January 2, 2006, the Government brought
suit for the purpose of correcting the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) covering
two parcels of land located in Malabon City then registered in the names of
defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a public
callejon and on a portion of the
Malabon-Navotas River shoreline to the extent, respectively, of an area of 45
square meters and of about 600 square meters. The suit, entitled Republic of the
De
De
xxx in causing it (to) appear that persons (spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu) have participated in an act or proceeding (the making and filing of the Answers) when they did not in fact so participate; in fact, they could not have so participated because they were already dead as of that time, which is punishable under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent also committed the crime of Use of Falsified Documents, by submitting the said falsified Answers in the judicial proceedings, Civil Case No. 4674MN;
Respondent also made a mockery of the aforesaid judicial proceedings by representing dead persons therein who, he falsely made to appear, as contesting the complaints, counter-suing and cross-suing the adverse parties.
12. That, as a consequence of the above criminal acts, complainant respectfully submits that respondent likewise violated:
(a) His Lawyer’s Oath:
xxx
(b) The Code of Professional Responsibility:[3]
xxx
On
In due course, or on
1. The persons
who had engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family in Civil Case No.
4674MN were William and Leonardo Lim, the children of Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu;
2. Upon his (Atty.
Castelo) initial queries relevant to the material allegations of the Government’s
complaint in Civil Case No. 4674MN,
William Lim, the representative of the Lim Family, informed him:
a.
That the Lim
family had acquired the properties from Georgina Flores;
b.
That William and
Leonardo Lim were already actively managing the family business, and now co-owned
the properties by virtue of the deed of
absolute sale their parents, Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, had executed
in their favor; and
c. That because
of the execution of the deed of absolute
sale, William and Leonardo Lim had since honestly assumed that their
parents had already caused the transfer of the TCTs to their names.
3. Considering
that William and Leonardo Lim themselves were the ones who had engaged his
services, he (Atty. Castelo) consequently truthfully stated in the motion seeking
an extension to file responsive pleading dated February 3, 2006 the fact that it
was “the family of the defendants” that had engaged him, and that he had then advised
“the children of the defendants” to seek the assistance as well of a licensed
geodetic surveyor and engineer;
4.
He (Atty. Castelo)
prepared the initial pleadings based on his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu were then still living.
Had he known that they were already deceased, he would have most
welcomed the information and would have moved to substitute Leonardo and
William Lim as defendants for that reason;
5.
He (Atty.
Castelo) had no intention to commit either a falsehood or a falsification, for
he in fact submitted the death certificates of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
in order to apprise the trial court of that fact; and
6.
The Office of the
Prosecutor for
On September 3, 2010, the complainant
submitted a reply,[6] whereby he asserted that the respondent’s claim
in his comment that he had represented
the Lim family was a deception, because the subject of the complaint against the respondent was his filing of the answers in behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu despite their being already deceased at the time of the filing. The
complainant regarded as baseless the justifications of the Office of the City
Prosecutor for
The Court usually first refers administrative
complaints against members of the Philippine Bar to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation and appropriate recommendations. For the
present case, however, we forego the prior referral of the complaint to the
IBP, in view of the facts being uncomplicated and based on the pleadings in
Civil Case No. 4674MN. Thus, we decide the complaint on its merits.
Ruling
We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any
falsehood or falsification in his pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Accordingly,
we dismiss the patently frivolous complaint.
I
Attorney’s Obligation to tell the truth
All attorneys in the
I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I 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 the doing of any in court; 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.
The Code of
Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s
Oath, providing:[8]
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, as
officers of the Court, to act with the highest standards of honesty, integrity,
and trustworthiness. All attorneys are thereby
enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any falsehood in
or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct
themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients. Being also servants of
the Law, attorneys are expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and to
make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by others.[9] The least they can do in that regard
is to refrain from engaging in any form or manner of unlawful conduct (which
broadly includes any act or omission contrary to law, but does not necessarily
imply the element of criminality even if it is broad enough to include such
element).[10]
To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest
value, for, as the Court has said in Young v. Batuegas:[11]
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
admission to the Bar that he will “do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any in court” and he shall “conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best
of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to his clients.” He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his
high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of
the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The
courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty
to defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in
defense of his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not
only the presumption of regularity in the discharge of their duties, but also
the immunity from liability to others for as long as the performance of their
obligations to their clients does not depart from their character as servants
of the Law and as officers of the Court.
In particular, the statements they make in behalf of their clients that
are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely
privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak of privilege is
necessary and essential in ensuring the unhindered service to their clients’
causes and in protecting the clients’ confidences. With the cloak of privilege,
they can freely and courageously speak for their clients, verbally or in
writing, in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, without
running the risk of incurring criminal prosecution or actions for damages.[12]
Nonetheless, even if they enjoy a number of privileges by
reason of their office and in recognition of the vital role they play in the
administration of justice, attorneys hold the privilege and right to practice
law before judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or offices
only during good behavior.[13]
II
Respondent did not violate the Lawyer’s Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility
On
2.
The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are ADMITTED. Moreover,
it is hereby made known that defendants spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had
already sold the two (2) parcels of land, together with the building and
improvements thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (148805)
139876 issued by the Register of Deeds of
Rizal, to Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 – 502 Dolores
Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila. Hence, Leonardo Lim and William Lim
are their successors-in-interest and are the present lawful owners thereof.
In order to properly and fully protect their rights, ownership and interests, Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu as substitute/representative parties in this action. In this manner, a complete and expeditious resolution of the issues raised in this case can be reached without undue delay. A photo copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property, executed by herein defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in favor of said Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, is hereto attached as Annex “1” hereof.
xxx
21. There is improper joinder of parties in the complaint. Consequently, answering defendants are thus unduly compelled to litigate in a suit regarding matters and facts as to which they have no knowledge of nor any involvement or participation in.
22. Plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel in bringing this suit, as it was the one who, by its governmental authority, issued the titles to the subject property.
This action is barred by the principles of prescription and laches for plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in brining this suit, particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein answering defendants acquired the subject property in good faith and for value. If truly plaintiff has a clear and valid cause of action on the subject property, it should not have waited thirty (30) years to bring suit.
Two years later, or on
The following portions of De
2. Defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, are Filipino citizens with addresses at 504 Plaza del Conde, Manila and at 46 C. Arellano St., San Agustin, Malabon City, where they may be served with summons and other court processes;
3. Defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are all of legal age and with postal address at Rms. 501-502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila, alleged purchasers of the property in question from defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu;
4. Defendants Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City
holds office in
xxx
7. That intervenor Jessie de Leon, is the owner
of a parcel of land located in
8. That there are now more or less at least 40 squatters on intervenor’s property, most of them employees of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee who had gained access to intervenor’s property and built their houses without benefit of any building permits from the government who had made their access to intervenor’s property thru a two panel metal gate more or less 10 meters wide and with an armed guard by the gate and with permission from defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and/or and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee illegally entered intervenor’s property thru a wooden ladder to go over a 12 foot wall now separating intervenor’s property from the former esquinita which is now part of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu’s and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo’s and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee’s property and this illegally allowed his employees as well as their relatives and friends thereof to illegally enter intervenor’s property through the ladders defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu installed in their wall and also allowed said employees and relatives as well as friends to build houses and shacks without the benefit of any building permit as well as permit to occupy said illegal buildings;
9. That the enlargement of the properties of spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had resulted in the closure of street lot no. 3 as described in TCT no. 143828, spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu having titled the street lot no. 3 and placed a wall at its opening on C. Arellano street, thus closing any exit or egress or entrance to intervenor’s property as could be seen from Annex “H” hereof and thus preventing intervenor from entering into his property resulted in preventing intervenor from fully enjoying all the beneficial benefits from his property;
10. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and later on defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are the only people who could give permission to allow third parties to enter intervenor’s property and their control over intervenor’s property is enforced through his armed guard thus exercising illegal beneficial rights over intervenor’s property at intervenor’s loss and expense, thus depriving intervenor of legitimate income from rents as well as legitimate access to intervenor’s property and the worst is preventing the Filipino people from enjoying the Malabon Navotas River and enjoying the right of access to the natural fruits and products of the Malabon Navotas River and instead it is defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee using the public property exclusively to enrich their pockets;
xxx
13. That
defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim
and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee were
confederating, working and helping one another in their actions to inhibit
intervenor Jessie de Leon to gain access and beneficial benefit from his
property;
On July 10, 2008, the respondent, representing
all the defendants named in De Leon’s
complaint in intervention, responded in
an answer to the complaint in
intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim,[17]
stating that “spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu xxx are now both deceased,” to
wit:
xxx
2. The allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
Complaint are ADMITTED, with the qualification that defendants-spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo Lim, William Lim and
Sally Lee Lim are the registered and lawful owners of the subject property
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-35929, issued by the Register of
Deeds for Malabon City, having long ago acquired the same from the
defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, who are now both deceased. Copy of the TCT No. M-35929 is attached hereto
as Annexes “1” and “1-A”. The same title
has already been previously submitted to this Honorable Court on
xxx
The respondent subsequently submitted
to the RTC a so-called clarification and
submission,[18] in
which he again adverted to the deaths of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, as
follows:
1. On
2. The Motion for Substitution is grounded on the fact that the two (2) parcels of land, with the improvements thereon, which are the subject matter of the instant case, had long been sold and transferred by the principal defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu to herein complaint-in-intervention defendants Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale, a copy of which is attached to said Motion as Annex “1” thereof.
3. Quite plainly, the original principal defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, having sold and conveyed the subject property, have totally lost any title, claim or legal interest on the property. It is on this factual ground that this Motion for Substitution is based and certainly not on the wrong position of Intervenor de Leon that the same is based on the death of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu.
4. Under the foregoing circumstances and facts, the demise of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu no longer has any significant relevance to the instant Motion. To, however, show the fact of their death, photo copy of their respective death certificates are attached hereto as Annexes “1” and “2” hereof.
5. The Motion for substitution of Defendants in
the Principal Complaint dated
6. Simply put, movants-defendants Lim have become the indispensable defendants in the principal complaint of plaintiff DENR, being now the registered and lawful owners of the subject property and the real parties-in-interest in this case. Without them, no final determination can be had in the Principal complaint.
7. Significantly, the property of intervenor Jessie de Leon, which is the subject of his complaint-in-intervention, is identically, if not similarly, situated as that of herein movants-defendants Lim, and likewise, may as well be a proper subject of the Principal Complaint of plaintiff DENR.
8. Even the plaintiff DENR, itself, concedes the
fact that herein movants-defendants Lim should be substituted as defendants in
the principal complaint as contained in their Manifestation dated
WHEREFORE, herein movants-defendants Lim most respectfully submit their Motion for substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint and pray that the same be granted.
xxx
Did the respondent violate the letter
and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility in
making the averments in the aforequoted pleadings of the defendants?
A plain reading indicates that the
respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still
living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer to the complaint in intervention with
counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were already deceased.
Even granting, for the sake of
argument, that any of the respondent’s pleadings might have created any
impression that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living, we still
cannot hold the respondent guilty of any dishonesty or falsification. For one, the
respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties
when he filed the answer with
counterclaim and cross-claim on
III
Good faith must always motivate any complaint
against a Member of the Bar
According to Justice Cardozo,[19] “xxx the fair fame of a lawyer,
however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice.
Reputation in such a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once
lost, is not easily restored.”
A lawyer’s reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must
shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious.
It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint
against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings
any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from intimidation
and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best
contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.
The complainant initiated his complaint possibly for the sake of harassing the respondent, either to vex him for taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No. 4674MN, or to get even for an imagined wrong in relation to the subject matter of the pending action, or to accomplish some other dark purpose. The worthlessness of the accusation – apparent from the beginning – has impelled us into resolving the complaint sooner than later.
WHEREFORE, we dismiss the complaint for disbarment or suspension filed
against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-21.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Form No. 28, attached to the Rules of Court.
[8] Macias
v. Selda, A.C. No. 6442,
[9] Agpalo, Comments on the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct, 2001 Edition.
[10] In
Re:Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty.
Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar,
A. M. No. P-06-2177,
[11] A.C. No. 5379,
[12] Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Eighth Edition (2009), pp.8-9.
[13]
[14] Rollo, pp. 22-33 (Note that the cross-claim was against Georgina Flores, the transferor/predecessor-in-interest of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu).
[15]
[16] The Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City was also named by the complainant as a defendant to his complaint in intervention.
[17] Rollo, pp. 43-54.
[18]
[19] People of the State of New York ex rel. Alexander Karlin v. Charles W. Culkin, as Sheriff of the County of New York, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487, 60 A.L.R. 851.