Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA A.C. No. 6368

BENGCO,

Complainants,
Present:

CARPIO, J.,

Chairperson,
-versus-
BRION,

PEREZ,

SERENO, and

REYES, JJ.

Promulgated:
 ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO,

Respondent. June 13, 2012

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This is a complaint1[1] for disbarment filed by complainants Fidela G.

Bengco (Fidela) and Teresita N. Bengco (Teresita) against respondent Atty. Pablo
Bernardo (Atty. Bernardo) for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member
of the Bar and violation of his duties and oath as a lawyer.

1[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3

 The acts of the respondent which gave rise to the instant complaint are as
follows:

That sometime on or about the period from April 15, 1997 to July 22, 1997, Atty.
Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance and collusion with a certain
Andres Magat [wilfully] and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to
defraud herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by using
false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of
the land belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the
acquaintance of complainants herein and they convinced herein complainant[s]
that if they will finance and deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as
advance money he would expedite the titling of the subject land and further by
means of other similar deceit like misrepresenting himself as lawyer of William
Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the subject land, who is the owner of Plastic
City at Canomay Street, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and he is the one handling
William Gatchalians business transaction and that he has contracts at NAMREA,
DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation he well knew
were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainant[s] to give
and deliver the said amount ([P]495,000.00) and once in possession of said
amount, far from complying with his obligation to expedite and cause the titling
of the subject land, [wilfully], unlawfully and illegally misappropriated,
misapplied and converted the said amount to his personal use and benefit and
despite demand upon him to return the said amount, he failed and refused to do
so, which acts constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of
the Bar and Violation of Duties and Oath as a lawyer.2[2]

In support of their complaint, the complainants attached thereto Resolutions

dated December 7, 19983[3] and June 22, 19994[4] of the Third Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC) of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga and the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga, respectively,

2[2] Id. at 1-2.

3[3] Id. at 4-7.

4[4] Id. at 8-10.

finding probable cause for the filing of the criminal information 5[5] against both
Atty. Bernardo and Andres Magat (Magat) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 48, charging them with the crime of Estafa
punishable under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

The respondent was required to file his Comment. 6[6] On September 24,
2004, the respondent filed an undated Comment, 7[7] wherein he denied the
allegations against him and averred the following:

2. He had not deceived both complainants between the period from April 15,
1997 to July 22, 1997 for purposes of getting from them the amount of
[P]495,000.00. It was Andy Magat whom they contacted and who in turn sought
the legal services of the respondent. It was Andy Magat who received the said
money from them.

3. There was no connivance made and entered into by Andy Magat and
respondent. The arrangement for titling of the land was made by Teresita N.
Bengco and Andy Magat with no participation of respondent.

4. The acceptance of the respondent to render his legal service is legal and
allowed in law practice.8[8]

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
5[5] Id. at 11.

6[6] Resolution dated June 2, 2004; id. at 13.

7[7] Id. at 17-18.

8[8] Id. at 17.

 On February 16, 2005, the IBP ordered the respondent to submit a verified
comment pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 6 of the Rules of Court as it appeared
that the respondents undated comment filed with the Court was not verified.9[9]

On March 15, 2005, respondent through counsel requested for an additional

fifteen (15) days from March 17, 2005, or until April 1, 2005, within which to
comply due to his medical confinement.10[10]

Thereafter, on April 4, 2005, the respondent filed a second motion11[11] for

extension praying for another 20 days, or until April 22, 2005, alleging that he was
still recovering from his illness.

On August 3, 2005, the case was set for mandatory conference. 12[12] The
respondent failed to appear; thus, the IBP considered the respondent in default for

9[9] IBP Folder, Vol. II, p. 1

10[10] Id. at 2.

11[11] Id. at 3.

12[12] Id. at 4.
his failure to appear and for not filing an answer despite extensions granted. The
case was then submitted for report and recommendation.13[13]

Based on the records of the case, Investigating Commissioner Rebecca

Villanueva-Maala made the following findings:

[O]n or before the period from 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, respondent with the
help and in connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat (Magat), by
using false pretenses and deceitful words, [wilfully] and illegally committed
fraudulent acts to the effect that respondent would expedite the titling of the land
belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City, who were the acquaintance of
complainants.

Respondent and Magat convinced complainants that if they finance and

deliver to them the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money, they would
expedite the titling of the subject land. Respondent represented himself to be the
lawyer of William Gatchalian, the owner of Plastic City located at Canomay
Street, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, who was allegedly the buyer of the subject land
once it has been titled. Respondent and Magat also represented that they have
contacts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which
representation they knew to be false, fraudulent and were only made to induce
complainants to give and deliver to them the amount of [P]495,000.00. Once in
possession of the said amount, far from complying with their obligation to
expedite and cause the titling of the subject land, respondent and Magat [wilfully],
unlawfully and illegally misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said
amount to their personal use and benefit and despite demand upon them to return
the said amount, they failed and refused to do so.

In view of the deceit committed by respondent and Magat, complainants

filed a complaint for Estafa against the former before the Third Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. In the
preliminary investigation conducted by the said court, it finds sufficient grounds
to hold respondent and Magat for trial for the crime of Estafa defined under par.
2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The case was
transmitted to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga for appropriate
action as per Order dated 7 December 1998.

13[13] Id. at 6.
 The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Pampanga conducted a re-investigation of the case. During the re-
investigation thereof, Magat was willing to reimburse to complainants the amount
of [P]200,000.00 because according to him the amount of [P]295,000.00 should
be reimbursed by respondent considering that the said amount was turned over to
respondent for expenses incurred in the documentation prior to the titling of the
subject land. Both respondent and Magat requested for several extensions for
time to pay back their obligations to the complainants. However, despite
extensions of time granted to them, respondent and Magat failed to fulfil their
promise to pay back their obligation. Hence, it was resolved that the offer of
compromise was construed to be an implied admission of guilt. The Asst.
Provincial Prosecutor believes that there was no reason to disturb the findings of
the investigating judge and an Information for Estafa was filed against respondent
and Magat on 8 July 1999 before the Regional Trial Court, San Fernando,
Pampanga.

The failure of the lawyer to answer the complaint for disbarment despite
due notice on several occasions and appear on the scheduled hearings set, shows
his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrates his despiciency
for his oath of office as a lawyer which deserves disciplinary sanction x x x.

From the facts and evidence presented, it could not be denied that
respondent committed a crime that import deceit and violation of his attorneys
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which he was
bound to obey the laws of the land. The commission of unlawful acts, specially
crimes involving moral turpitude, acts of dishonesty in violation of the attorneys
oath, grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or
disbarment of lawyers (Rule 138, Section 27, RRC).

The misconduct complained of took place in 1997 and complainants filed

the case only on 16 April 2004. As provided for by the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission of Bar Discipline, as amended, dated 24 March 2004, A complaint
for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years
from the date of the professional misconduct (Section 1, Rule VIII).14[14]

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that:

14[14] IBP Folder, Report and Recommendation, pp. 4-7.

 x x x [R]espondent ATTY. PABLO A. BERNARDO be SUSPENDED for a
period of TWO YEARS from receipt hereof from the practice of his profession as
a lawyer and as a member of the Bar. 15[15]

On February 1, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No.

XVII-2007-065, viz:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is
hereby ordered, the restitution of the amount of [P]200,000.00 within sixty (60)
days from receipt of notice with Warning that if he does not return the amount
with in sixty days from receipt of this Order then he will be meted the penalty of
Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.16[16]

On May 16, 2007, the respondent promptly filed a Motion for

Reconsideration17[17] of the aforesaid Resolution of the IBP. The respondent
averred that: (1) the IBP resolution is not in accord with the rules considering that
the complaint was filed more than two (2) years from the alleged misconduct and
therefore, must have been dismissed outright; (2) he did not commit any
misrepresentation in convincing Fidela to give him money to finance the titling of
the land; (3) he was hired as a lawyer through Magat who transacted with Teresita
as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement 18[18] signed by the latter; (4) he
was denied due process when the Investigating Commissioner considered him as in
15[15] Id. at 7.

16[16] Id. at 1.

17[17] Id. at 8-10.

default after having ignored the representative he sent during the hearing on
August 3, 2005; and (5) he long restituted the amount of P225,000.00 not as an
offer of compromise but based on his moral obligation as a lawyer due to Teresitas
declaration that he had to stop acting as her legal counsel sometime in the third
quarter of 1997. The respondent pointed out the admission made by Fidela in her
direct testimony before the RTC that she received the amount, as evidenced by
photocopies of receipts.

In an Order19[19] dated May 17, 2007 issued by the IBP, the complainant
was required to comment within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

In her Comment,20[20] Fidela explained that it took them quite some time in
filing the administrative case because they took into consideration the possibility of
an amicable settlement instead of a judicial proceeding since it would stain the
respondents reputation as a lawyer; that the respondent went into hiding which
prompted them to seek the assistance of CIDG agents from Camp Olivas in order
to trace the respondents whereabouts; that the respondent was duly accorded the
opportunity to be heard; and finally, that no restitution of the P200,000.00 plus
corresponding interest has yet been made by the respondent.

18[18] Id. at 16-19.

19[19] Id. at 23.

20[20] Id. at 24-25.

 On June 21, 2008, Fidela filed a Manifestation21[21] stating that the RTC
rendered a decision in the criminal case for Estafa finding the accused, Atty.
Bernardo and Magat guilty of conspiracy in the commission of Estafa under
Article 315 par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and both are sentenced to suffer six
(6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and
one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.22[22]

In a Letter23[23] dated March 23, 2009, addressed to the IBP, Fidela sought
the resolution of the present action as she was already 86 years of age. Later, an
Ex-parte Motion to Resolve the Case24[24] dated September 1, 2010 was filed by
the complainants. In another Letter dated October 26, 2011, Fidela, being 88 years
old, sought for Atty. Bernardos restitution of the amount of P200,000.00 so she
can use the money to buy her medicine and other needs.

The Court adopts and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the IBP.

It is first worth mentioning that the respondents defense of prescription is

untenable. The Court has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not
21[21] Id. at 31-33.

22[22] Id. at 34.

23[23] Id. at 36.

24[24] Id. at 38-39.

prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending
act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the
administrative culpability of a lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would only
be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from
the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward,
they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative
liability they ought to answer for.25[25]

Further, consistent with his failure to file his answer after he himself pleaded
for several extensions of time to file the same, the respondent failed to appear
during the mandatory conference, as ordered by the IBP. As a lawyer, the
respondent is considered as an officer of the court who is called upon to obey and
respect court processes. Such acts of the respondent are a deliberate and
contemptuous affront on the courts authority which can not be countenanced.

It can not be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration

of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not
only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is
ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their
private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and
good demeanor.26[26]

25[25] Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, 523 Phil. 17, 19 (2006), citing Heck v. Santos,
467 Phil. 798 (2004).
 Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:

Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement
or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

There is no question that the respondent committed the acts complained of.
He himself admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the
complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly
purchased. While he begs for the Courts indulgence, his contrition is shallow
considering the fact that he used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the
complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject
properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the
complainants in the amount of P495,000.00.

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to

public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not
primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital
that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary

26[26] Tomlin II v. Atty. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325, 330 (2006).
consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice
should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.27[27]

It is likewise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct

from a criminal action filed against a lawyer despite having involved the same set
of facts. Jurisprudence has it that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not
necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely,
the respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively.28[28]

In Yu v. Palaa,29[29] the Court held that:

Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases
against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they
may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not
constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are
attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial
policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a
lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to
apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal
profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final
disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
27[27] Atty. Khan, Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, 456 Phil. 560, 565-566 (2003).

28[28] Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty. Nadoza, 374 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).

29[29] A.C. No. 7747, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 21.
 welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of
persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his
conduct as an officer of the court.30[30] (Citations omitted)

As the records reveal, the RTC eventually convicted the respondent for the
crime of Estafa for which he was meted the penalty of sentenced to suffer six (6)
years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one
(1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. Such criminal conviction clearly
undermines the respondents moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138,
Section 27 provides that:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,

grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.

In view of the foregoing, this Court has no option but to accord him the
punishment commensurate to all his acts and to accord the complainants,
especially the 88-year old Fidela, with the justice they utmost deserve.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Pablo S.

Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
effective upon notice hereof.

30[30] Id. at 28.

 Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN the
amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10)
DAYS from receipt of this Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his proof of compliance
thereof to the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant within TEN (10)
DAYS therefrom; with a STERN WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him
the additional penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in his record as attorney and be

furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for
their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
 Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice