CASES ON VIOLATION OF LAWYERS OATHREPORTER: LANOEL S. LAJA

I. MONZON VS REYESA.C. No.1056 October 27, 1975Facts: Complainant Saturnino S. Monzon charged the respondent Atty. Arsenio Reyes with: 1. violation of lawyers oath in that the lawyer shall do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and 2. Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without proper authority. The antecedent facts of this case is based on Monzon vs CFI, Manila CA-GR. No. 42375. Accordingly, an intestate proceeding with CFI Manila was filed by Catalino C. Fausto, surviving spouse of Ramona Rono who died on July 31, 1962. The decedent left 5 heirs, her husband, Catalino and 4 children. On March 1, 1965, Catalino Fausto executed a deed of absolute sale whereby he sold unto Gertrudes Francisco his share, interest, and participation on two parcel of land in the estate of Ramona Rono for P 65,000.00. The thermofax copy of the deed of sale which was ratified before the Notary Pubic Arsenio Reyes does not bear the signature of the vendor and the vendee but the same bears the signatures of the 2 witness thereto. Atty. Reyes filed a petition with the probate court for the approval of the said deed of sale which was given due course on February 18, 1966. However, pending that petition Mr. Fausto died on October 10, 1965. His second wife filed an intestate proceedings to settle the estate of fausto, with the herein defendant as her counsel. On October 7, 1967, Fe Fausto-Monzon, one of the children and heirs of spouses Ramona and Catalino also died and her surviving spouse, the complainant was appointed to substitute for her in both intestate estate of her mother and father. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for relief alleging the absence of vendors and vendees signature in the deed of absolute sale. Court of appeals dismissed the petition citing the answer of Atty. Reyes where he represented that the subject deed of sale bears the signature of both buyer and seller, and that there was also a final deed of sale executed on July 5, 1965 bearing the signature of buyer and seller. He stated further that the original of the two documents were filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila. The disbarment was based on the alleged false statement made by respondent in pleadings filed where he stated that the original documents of the deeds of sale were filed with Register of Deeds in Manila, when in truth what he filed was only a certified true copy thereof. In the disbarment proceeding, respondent in his answer stated that he had the original of the same deed and that he did not file the same with Register of Deed Manila. What he did file according to him was a certified true copy which he attached to the adverse claim he filed therewith. Issue: Whether or not respondent violated the attorneys oath.Held: The respondents conduct is a careless and reckless behavior in making inaccurate or untruthful statements before the Court of Appeals as well as before the office of Solicitor General, among others. As it does not appear that substantial prejudice has been actually caused the complainant or the forum to whom the statements have been addressed, the truth or falsity of the statement or representation in question being irrelevant in the resolution of the cases at hand, the same does not justify disbarment. Respondent is reprimanded for being reckless in making statement of fact in his pleadings and admonished that a repetition of such offense would be dealt with more severely.

II. PANGAN VS RAMOSA.M. NO. 1053 September 7, 1979Facts:Atty. Dionisio Ramos moved for postponement of hearing in an administrative case where herein complainant Santa Pangan want him cited in contempt. Said motion was granted on the basis that Atty. Ramos had case set for hearing before Branch VII, CFI Manila entitled People vs Marieta M. Isip on the said dates. However, upon verification, the attorney of record of the accused in said case was one Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos, 306 Dona Salud Bldg., Dasmarinas, Manila. For this reason, a disbarment case was filed by the same complainant stating that in representing himself as Pedro D.D. Ramos instead of Dionisio D. Ramos, respondent has violated his solemn oath.Respondent admitted that he used the name Pedro D.D. Ramos before the said court in connection with the cited case, but avers that he had a right to do so because in his Birth Certificate, his name is Pedro Dionisio Ramos, his parents are Pedro Ramos and Carmen Dayaw, and that the D.D. in Pedro D.D. Ramos is but an abbreviation of Dionisio Dayaw, his other given name and maternal surname.Issue : Whether or not respondent violated the lawyers oath in using name other than by which he was authorized to practice law.

Held: In using the name Pedro D.D. Ramos before the courts instead of the name by which he was authorized to practice law- respondent in effect resorted to deception and violated his solemn oath. As an officer in the temple of justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligation of truthfulness, candor, and frankness. Indeed candor and frankness should characterize the conduct of a lawyer at every stage. This has to be so because the court has the right to rely upon him in ascertaining the truth. The circumstance that this is his first aberration precludes imposition of a more severe penalty. Wherefore, respondent was severely reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same overt act may warrant his suspension or disbarment from practice of law.

III. RE: AGRIPINO A. BRILLANTES, ROMEO R. BRINGAS, ComplainantAM. NO. 1245 March 2, 1977

Facts: Atty. Agripino A. Brillantes was the counsel of the defendant Spouses Joaquin & Angustia Balmaceda in a Civil Case for recovery of a parcel of land (bought from Tranquilina Vda. De Pabalan per Deed of Sale notarized on September 18, 1969 entered in the Register of Deeds of Abra September 30, 1969)filed by Sps. Melchor & Valentina Bernardez. During the pre-trial conference of the case, Atty. Brillantes claimed that his clients were not the real parties in interest. He exhibited a duplicate copy of a deed of sale dated April 13, 1969 of the land in dispute accordingly executed by Tranquilina Vda. De Pabalan in favor of Dr. Restituto Balmaceda and notarized by Atty. Brillantes on April 16, 1969. As such, Dr. Balmaceda has to be named additional defendant in the said case, thus, delaying the proceedings. In the course of determination as to who between the litigants had better rights, the court found out that the purported deed of sale in favor of Dr. Balmaceda was spurious and that Atty. Brillantes was never commissioned as Notary Public of the Province of Abra. Atty. Romeo Bringas, Nephew of the defendants in the civil case, filed with CFI Abra two sworn statements alleging that the latter notarized a deed of sale of real property without being commissioned as Notary Public in violation of Article 171 of RPC, and knowingly introduced the said deed as evidence in the subject case in violation of Article 172 of RPC. Prior to the filing of charges by the Fiscal, Atty. Bringas filed an unverified motion seeking the suspension of Atty. Brillantes. Thus, the judge, in a separate hearing of this administrative case suspended the respondent lawyer for two years from practice of law since the respondent merely denied having signed subject deed of sale and did not submit any other evidence. Pending review of this disbarment case by the Supreme Court, a supplemental complaint was filed by the same complainant alleging that the respondent on March 1, 1974, without being commissioned a notary public, administered the oath in a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction filed in the Court of appeals. Notwithstanding his suspension, respondent filed a Petition for Extension to Comply with Order which required him to comment on a telegram received by CA that he was not duly commissioned notary public, and to which he merely stated that the petitioner died in December 6, 1972 and the heirs cannot be contacted. On September 20, 1974, respondent submitted a manifestation that he was duly commissioned notary public from 1968 t0 1969 and in support therewith he submitted his alleged carbon copy of commission, oath of office, and a receipt by a clerk of court of his notarial book and monthly reports typed on a small piece of paper all of which do not bear a seal of court a quo except an undecipherable initial written over the name Judge Ofilada. Judge Ofilada, when asked to comment filed a manifestation that to the best of his recollection, Atty. Brillantes was not appointed Notary Public from January 1968 to December 1969. A certified list of commissioned notaries in the Province of Abra for the said years submitted by the clerk of court did not include his name therein. In sum, the respondent submitted the following defense. 1. It is only the Supreme Court alone under Rule 139 and not court a quo, who has the jurisdiction over a complaint for suspension of an attorney. Said complain should be under oath. 2. The deed of sale is a genuine document as admitted by the parties themselves in their stipulation of facts. Consequently, the acknowledgment thereof before a notary public is no longer relevant. The charges in the instant case are identical with those in the criminal cases, therefore a prejudicial question. ISSUE:Whether or not the respondent violated his lawyers oathHELD: What made the respondents pretensions unpardonable was his act of presenting to this court spurious and falsified evidence of his alleged commission. Instead of accepting his misdeeds and asking leniency, the respondent chose to sow even more falsehood. The alacrity of the respondent in foisting deception on this court is a manifest sign that as he gained in age, he has veered away from lifes virtues. By his persistent disregard of the lawyers credo to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court , respondent has demonstrated beyond cavil that he is not fit and worthy to continue in the distinguished and exalted calling of the Bar.

IV. SANTOS VS DICHOSOAM. NO. 1825 August 22, 1978FACTS: Romulo Santos charged Atty. Alberto M. Dichoso for alleged deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and violation of his lawyers oath. In a Special Proceeding No. 2452-P before CFI Pasay, Romulo Santos and his brother Lamberto Santos sought to be appointed as joint guardian over the person and property of their 75-year old father who was rendered incompetent as a result of vehicular mishap. The respondent herein was the counsel of the oppositor, Flordeliza Aniana (claiming to be daughter of Emilio Santos) in the said guardianship proceedings. Complainant accused respondent of surreptitiously filing notices of lis pendens covering the properties of Emilio Santos in Registers of Deeds of Makati, Metro Mania, and Tagaytay City taking advantage of his position and knowledge of the law, deliberately and wilfully misled and made false representation as being the counsel for plaintiff thus beguiling and deceiving the Registers of Deeds into making annotation to the damage and prejudice of the registered owner. In his answer, respondent denied the charge of surreptitiously filing of notice of lis pendens on real properties of Emilio Santos. He also denied having misled and misrepresented himself as counsel of plaintiff. Respondent explained the mistake as mere clerical error committed by his new clerk, Romulo Vicente. According to him, the counsel for plaintiff should have been counsel for the oppositor as there is no plaintiff but petitioner in guardianship proceedings. Respondent maintained that when the notice of lis pendens was filed, he was still sick and still suffering from stroke. Since there was an immediate necessity of filing of the notice as the complainant was about to dispose or squander the properties, his secretary merely copied some form of notice of lis pendens filed by the undersigned in other cases. When it was handed to him for signature he called the attention of his secretary to change the word plaintiff to oppositor. He was surprised to learn that he did not change the word plaintiff.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated his lawyers oath

HELD: The acts do not constitute violation of lawyers oath. The records reveal that respondent may not be faulted for having filed the notice of lis pendens. Being a counsel for the oppositor in the guardianship proceeding, respondent has the duty to pursue with zeal and dedication the best interests of his client and the filing of the notice was well within the scope of his authority as counsel.

V. LAMES VS LASCIERASAM. NO. 1919 March 30, 1979Facts: Federico A. Lascieras was appointed counsel de oficio of the Fructuoso Lames, Jr. accused of qualified theft of coconuts, son of the complainant Carmen Lames. After the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Carmen Lames took the records from Atty. Lascieras and denounced him to the President of the Philippines in her letter dated May 22, 1978. Said letter was referred to the Supreme Court and was treated a complaint for disbarment. The complaint denounced that Atty. Lascieras was negligent in handling the defense of her son. She also faulted him for not appearing at the promulgation of the judgment although she gave him ten pesos for the transportation expense. She also claimed to have given the respondent twenty seven pesos which according to her the respondent asked to pay for the stenographic notes needed in preparing the memorandum. She further blamed the respondent that in violation of his oath he failed to obtain a grant of motion for dismissal even after a judicial confession made by a witness Pedro Delfino that it was him who climbed the Alivios coconut tree. In defense, the respondent denied the allegation and maintained that as a counsel de oficio he secured a bail bond for the accused and he even acted as one of the sureties. The conviction was based on positive identification of the prosecutions witness who stated that she saw the accused descending from the Alivios coconut tree and that she recognized Lames because of moonlight. Nevertheless, he presented witnesses for the defense of Lames. One witness, Cecilia Hermoso testified that he slept with Lames and a certain Pedro Delfino admitted that he was the one who climbed Alivios coconut tree. In view of that, he moved to dismiss the charge and that Delfino de indicted for qualified theft but the court denied his motion. He also stated that he could not attend the promulgation because he had a hearing in Circuit Criminal Court and that he filed a manifestation to the municipal court stating that he could not be present at the promulgation of judgment and request that he be furnished with a copy of the decision. In fact after learning the judgment of conviction, he filed a notice of appeal but Mrs. Lames took the record from him.Issue: Whether or not respondent violated his oathHeld: There is no justification for holding in this case that the respondent violated his oath as a lawyer or was remiss in the performance of his duties. There is no showing that he suppressed facts or secreted witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused. The possibility that a lawyer, more experienced and competent than the respondent, could have defended complainants son with more skill and ability, is not a ground for holding that the respondent is not fit to be member of the bar.