PA.C. No. 10583 [Formerly CBD 09-2555], February 18, 2015 ROBR!O BRNARD"NO, BRNARD"NO , Complainant , v. A!!#. $"C!OR R# %AN!O%, Respondent. A.C. NO. 1058& [FOR'R(# CBD 10-282)] A!!#. *O% 'AN+A%R CAR"N+A( , Complainant , v. A!!#. $"C!OR R# %AN!O% , Respondent . R%O(!"ON (ONN, J. These cases cases involve administra administrative tive Complaints Complaints 1 against Atty. Victor Rey Santos for violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 2 and Canon 1, Rule 1.0! ! of the Code of "rofessional Responsi#ility. $n A.C. %o. 10&!, complainant Ro#erto C. 'ernardino ('ernardino) *led a +etterComplaint - against Atty. Atty. Victor Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) #efore the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines, praying that Atty. Santos #e investigated and su#ected to disciplinary action. crala/la/li#rary 'ernardino alleged that the death certi*cate of his aunt, Ru*na de Castro Turla, /as falsi*ed #y Atty. Santos. Atty. Atty. Santos made it appear that Ru*na Turla Turla died in 12, /hen in fact, she died in 10.crala/la/li#rary Atty. Santos used the falsi*ed death certi*cate to support the Adavit of SelfAdudication 3 e4ecuted #y 5ariano Turla, hus#and hus #and of Ru*na Turla. Turla. & "aragraph of the Adavit of SelfAdudication prepared #y Atty. Santos states6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary states6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary Being her surviving spouse, I am the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did not leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her estate. (7mphasis in the original, underscoring supplied) 8ears 8ears later, later, Atty. Atty. Santos, on on #ehalf of 5arilu Turla, daughter of Ru*na and 5ariano Turla, 10 *led a Complaint 11 for sum of money /ith prayer for 9rit of "reliminary $nunction and temporary restraining order against 'ernardino, doc:eted as Civil Case %o. 02.12 The Complaint in Civil Case %o. 02 alleged that 5arilu Turla is an heir of 5ariano Turla, 1! /hich allegedly contradicts the Adavit of Self Adudication that Atty. Santos drafted.1- ;ence, Atty Atty.. Santos represented clients /ith conA5$%AT$=% '86
ATT8. CAR$%? C AR$%?A+ A+
.... @ 6 $n your udicial AdavitB, you mentioned that you :no/ 5arilu C. TurlaB, the plaintiDB, since she /as a#out four years old. A 6 8es, sir. @ 6 As a matter of factB, you :no/ her very /ellB, considering that you are a Ninong of the plaintiD, isnEt itF A 6 $ /as not a Ninong /hen $ *rst :ne/ 5arilu Turla, $ /as ust recently married to one of her cousins. .. .. @ 6 %o/, the parents of 5arilu Turla are 5ariano C. Turla and Ru*na C. TurlaF T;7 9$T%7SS 6 8es, sir. As per my study and as per my :no/ledge of her relationshipBs. T;7 C=GRT 6 9hatEs the name of the motherF ATT8. CAR$%?A+ 6 Ru*na, your ;onor. Ru*na Turla. @ 6 T;7 6 @ 6
And /ife died ahead of 5ariano, isnEt itF 9$T%7SS 8es, sir. And of course, #eing the daughter of Ru*na Turla, 5arilu is also an heir of Ru*na Turla, isnEt itF A 6 =f course. @ 6 %o/, /e go #y the ethics of the profession, 5r. 9itness. 8ou recallB, of courseB, and admitted Bsic in court that you drafted this document /hich you reHuested to #e mar:ed as 74hi#it '. T;7 C=GRT 6 74hi#itF ATT8. CAR$%?A+ 6 I'J, your ;onor, in particular reference to the Adavit of Adudication for the e4tra udicial settlement of the intestate estate of the late Ru*na Ke Castro TurlaB, and $ have ust learned from you as you ust testi*ed. Ru*na is the mother of the plaintiD hereB, 5arilu Turla. T;7 9$T%7SS 6 8es, sir. @ 6 And as you admitted, you prepared you drafted Bsic this 74tra udicial. A 6 8es, sir. @ 6 =r this Adavit of Adudication. ATT8. R78 SA%T=S 6 At this point in time, your ;onor, $ /ould o#ect to the Huestion regarding my legal ethics #ecause it is not the issue in this case. .. .. ATT8. CAR$%?A+ .. .. @ 6 . . . $n this document consisting of one, t/o, three, four and appearing to have #een duly notariLed on or a#out 2th Bof une 1- /ith document num#er 2&, page num#er 3, #oo: num#er 2!, series of 1- #efore %otary "u#lic ;ernando ". Angara. $ call your attention to the documentB, more particularlyB, paragraph
thereof and mar:ed as 74hi#it 3A for the defendantsB. $ read into the record and $ Huote, I'eing her surviving spouse, $ am the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of the said deceased /ho did not leave any descendant, ascendant or any other heir entitled to her estate.J 1Mr. Witness, is this particular provision that you have drafted into this document . . . true or false? ATT8. R78 SA%T=S 6 8our ;onor, $ /ould li:e to reiterate that any Huestion regarding the matter that /ould impugn the legitimacy of the plaintiD, 5arilu TurlaB, is impertinent and immaterial in this caseB. B$t /as only the /ife Ru*na Turla B/ho haBs the right to impugn the legitimacy of the plaintiDB, and that has #een the su#ect of my continuing o#ection from the very #eginning. T;7 C=GRT 6 'ut then againB, you have presented this document as your 74hi#it 'B. B8ou have practically opened the
me, )*%o na ang !ahala %ay &ulu",# hindi %o pa!a!ayaan yan+. o, he as%ed me to proceed with the *-davit of *dudication wherein he claimed the whole Bsic properties for himself.1& (7mphasis supplied)
/as doc:eted as A.C. %o. 10&-. 20 Similar to 'ernardinoEs Complaint, Atty. Caringal alleged that Atty. Santos represented clients /ith con
Another Complaint 1 /as *led against Atty. Santos #y Atty. ose 5angaser Caringal (Atty. Caringal). This
+astly, Atty. Caringal alleged that Atty. Santos cited the repealed Article 22 of the Civil Code in his arguments. !crala/la/li#rary
$n his Ans/er, ! Atty. Santos denied having falsi*ed the death certi*cate. !3 ;e e4plained that the death certi*cate and the Adavit of SelfAdudication /ere given to him #y 5ariano Turla and that he /as not a/are that there /as a falsi*ed entry in the death certi*cate. !&crala/la/li#rary As regards the issue on con
proscri#es mem#ers of the #ar from representing con
shall issue a resolution setting forth its *ndings and recommendations /hich, together /ith the /hole record of the case, shall forth/ith #e transmitted to the Supreme Court for *nal action. The issues in this case are6 (1) /hether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of "rofessional Responsi#ilityM and (2) /hether the penalty of suspension of three (!) months from the practice of la/ is proper. This court accepts and adopts the *ndings of fact of the $'" 'oard of ?overnorsE Resolution. ;o/ever, this court modi*es the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of la/ from three (!) months to one (1) year. Canon 1, Rule 1.0! of the Code of "rofessional Responsi#ility states6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary CA%=% 1 P A la/yer shall o#serve candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions /ith his client. .... Rule 1.0! P A la/yer shall not represent con
heir /hen he agreed to represent 5arilu Turla. 9orse, he :ne/ that 5ariano Turla /as not the only heir. As stated in the Report of the Commission on 'ar Kiscipline6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary 9orseB, the respondent himself on the /itness stand during his April 1-, 200 testimony in the Civil Case for um of Money with 3rayer of Writ of 3reliminary Inunction and emporary Restraining 9rder doc%eted as Civil Case No. 4:;<=: *led /ith the RTC of 5a:ati City admitted as follo/s6 I$ called the attention of 5r. 5ariano TurlaB. $ . . . as:ed him /hat a#out +ulu she is entitled Bsic to a share of properties and he . . . told me, QA:o na ang #ahala :ay +uluB, hindi :o pa#a#ayaan yan.E So he as:ed me to proceed /ith the Adavit of Adudication /herein he claimed the /hole Bsic properties for himself.J This very admission proves that the respondent /as privy to 5arilu TurlaEs standing as a legal and rightful heir to Ru*na TurlaEs estate. 2 (Citation omitted) ;o/ever, Rule 1.0! provides for an e4ception, speci*cally, I#y /ritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.J ! Respondent had the duty to inform 5ariano Turla and 5arilu Turla that there is a conuitor Bsic *nds that the respondentEs act of failing to th/art his client 5ariano Turla from *ling the *-davit of *dudication despite . . . his :no/ledge of the e4istence of 5arilu Turla as a possi#le heir to the estate of Ru*na Turla, the respondent failed to uphold his o#ligation as a mem#er of the #ar to #e the ste/ards of ustice and protectors of /hat is ust, legal and proper. Thus in failing to do his duty and acting dishonestlyB, not only /as he in contravention of the +a/yerEs =ath
#ut /as also in violation of Canon '4, Rule '4.4' of the Code of 3rofessional Responsi!ility . (7mphasis in the original) As ocers of the court, la/yers have the duty to uphold the rule of la/. $n doing so, la/yers are e4pected to #e honest in all their dealings. 3 Gnfortunately, respondent /as far from #eing honest. 9ith full :no/ledge that Ru*na Turla had another heir, he acceded to 5ariano TurlaEs reHuest to prepare the Adavit of Self Adudication. &crala/la/li#rary This court notes that the /ording of the $'" 'oard of ?overnorsE Resolutions dated 5ay 10, 201! and 5arch 22, 201- seems to imply that it is the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines that has the authority to impose sanctions on la/yers. This is /rong. The authority to discipline mem#ers of the 'ar is vested in this court under the 1&3 Constitution6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary ART$C+7 V$$$ GK$C$A+ K7"ART57%T
9e #egin #y referring to the authority of the Supreme Court to discipline ocers of the court and mem#ers of the court and mem#ers of the 'ar. The Supreme Court, as regular and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline la/yers stems from the CourtEs constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of la/, /hich includes as /ell authority to regulate the practice itself of la/. @uite apart from this constitutional mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over mem#ers of the 'ar is an inherent po/er incidental to the proper administration of ustice and essential to an orderly discharge of udicial functions. . . . . . . The disciplinary authority of the Court over mem#ers of the 'ar is #ut corollary to the CourtEs e4clusive po/er of admission to the 'ar. A la/yers Bsic is not merely a professional #ut also an ocer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the tas: and responsi#ility of dispensing ustice and resolving disputes in society. 31 (Citations omitted) This courtEs authority is restated under Rule 1!& of the Rules of Court, speci*cally6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary
.... Section . The Supreme Court shall have the follo/ing po/ers6 .... () "romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated #ar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. . . . (7mphasis supplied) aldivar v. andigan!ayan elucidated on this courtEs Iplenary disciplinary authority over attorneysJ 30 and discussed6chanRo#lesvirtual+a/li#rary
RG+7 1!& Attorneys and Admission to 'ar .... S7C. 23. @is!arment or suspension of attorneys !y upreme Court, grounds therefor.PA mem#er of the #ar may #e dis#arred or suspended from his oce as attorney #y the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oce, grossly immoral conduct, or #y reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath /hich he is reHuired to ta:e #efore admission to practice, or for a /ilful diso#edience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case /ithout authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at la/ for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or #ro:ers, constitutes malpractice. (7mphasis supplied) $n RamireA v. Buhayang;Margallo, 32 this court emphasiLed the authority of this court to impose disciplinary action on those admitted to the practice of la/. "arenthetically, it is this court that has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline la/yers. 3! Gnder the current rules, the duty to assist fact *nding can #e delegated to the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines. The *ndings of the $ntegrated 'ar, ho/ever, can only #e recommendatory, consistent /ith the constitutional po/ers of this court. $ts recommended penalties are also, #y its nature, recommendatory.3ChanRo#lesVirtuala/li#rary The authority given to the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines is #ased on Rule 1!', Section 1 of the Rules of Court, /hich provides that IBproceedings for the dis#arment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may #e ta:en #y the Supreme Court motu proprio, or
#y the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines . . . upon the veri*ed complaint of any person.J ;o/ever, this authority is only to assist this court /ith the investigation of the case, to determine factual *ndings, and to recommend, at #est, the penalty that may #e imposed on the erring la/yer. 9e reiterate the discussion in enoso v. *tty. chaneA 63crala/la/li#rary Time and again, this Court emphasiLes that the practice of la/ is im#ued /ith pu#lic interest and that Ia la/yer o/es su#stantial duties not only to his client, #ut also to his #rethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and ta:es part in one of the most important functions of the StatePthe administration of usticePas an ocer of the court.J Accordingly, IBla/yers are #ound to maintain not only a high standard of legal pro*ciency, #ut also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.J 3 (Citations omitted) =nly this court can impose sanctions on mem#ers of the 'ar. This disciplinary authority is granted #y the Constitution and cannot #e relinHuished #y this court. 33 The Resolutions of the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines are, at #est, recommendatory, and its
*ndings and recommendations should not #e eHuated /ith Kecisions and Resolutions rendered #y this court. /RFOR, /e *nd respondent Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.0! and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of "rofessional Responsi#ility. The *ndings of fact and recommendations of the 'oard of ?overnors of the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines dated 5ay 10, 201! and 5arch 22, 201- are ACCP!D a ADOP!D 4 4e 'OD"F"CA!"ON that the penalty of suspension from the practice of la/ for one (1) year is imposed upon Atty. Victor Rey Santos. ;e is /arned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall #e dealt /ith more severely. +et a copy of this Resolution #e furnished the =ce of the 'ar Con*dant, to #e appended to respondentEs personal record as attorney, to the $ntegrated 'ar of the "hilippines, and to the =ce of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance. %O ORDRD.
