Spouses Umaguing vs Atty de Vera

SPOUSES UMAGUING vs. ATTY. DE VERA February 04, 2015

FACTS: Umaguing ran for the position of SK Chairman but lost to her rival. Complainants lodged an election protest and engaged in the services of Atty. De Vera. According to the complainants, Atty. De Vera moved at a glacial pace; he rushed the preparation of the documents and attachments for the election protest. Two (2) of these attachments are the Affidavits of material witnesses, which was personally prepared by Atty. De Vera. At the time that the aforesaid affidavits were needed to be signed by the witnesses, they were unavailable. To remedy this, Atty. De Vera look for the nearest kin of the witnesses and ask them to sign and he had all the documents notarized. He hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the affidavits were falsified. In further breach of his oath, the integrity and competency of Atty. De Vera, the complainants withdraw him and for lack of trust and confidence in as their counsel. Complainants sought Atty. De Vera’s disbarment. ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable. Whether or not a case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that, fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. Xxx The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. xxx In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “[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.” Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified document before a court. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this country should remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath. Yes. 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 of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings

involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official administration of persons unfit to practice in them. xxx The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.