http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/2012marchresolutions.php?

id=149

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 4500: March 06, 2012]

BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 6, 2012,
which reads as follows:

"A.C. NO. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores v. Atty. Enrique S. Chua)

RESOLUTION

Before Us is the Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement dated October 24,
2011 interposed by respondent Atty. Enrique S. Chua in connection with the Decision of
the Court dated April 30, 1999,[1] ordering his disbarment for grave misconduct.

As may be recalled, the Court sustained the finding of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Jaime Vibar, on the culpability of
respondent for acts constituting grave misconduct. In particular, the Investigating
Commissioner found respondent guilty of the following inculpating acts: forum
shopping; committing falsehood; injurious, willful, and unprofessional conduct of
publishing, or causing the publication, of a pending case in a newspaper of general
circulation; causing undue delay in the court proceedings; and notarizing a document
without the party being present. We reproduce excerpts of the investigative report of
Atty. Vibar:

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

I. On the first charge (GROUND I) that respondent was guilty of fraud
against a person in his deathbed by falsification and forgery of a deed of
sale, there is no evidence that he actively conspired with any party, or
actively participated, in the forgery of the signalize of one Chua Beng, a
purported party to the contract. However, complainant's evidence supports
the conclusion that the signature of Chua Beng on a Deed of Sale (Exhibit
"E") was forged. While the wife, Silvina Chua, admits that she signed a
document during the wake of her husband, she denies that her husband
signed a "Deed of Sale" (ANNEX "E") on 5 December 1989, or one (1) day
before her husband's death, concerning a property covered by TCTNo.T-
151706.
We find the testimony of the wife on the forgery, which is supported by a
handwriting expert, as truthful and credible. We cannot ignore the
circumstances of the execution of the said deed of sale which purports to
have been signed by Chua Beng before a Notary Public one day before his
death. We find the statement in the "Acknowledgment" appearing on the
second page of the deed stating that Chua Beng personally appeared before
the Notary Public is an untruthful statement that amounts to falsification.
While we note that there is a criminal case of falsification pending against
respondent (Criminal Case No. 12036), the lack of a decision from the trial
court on the matter should not dissuade us from making a finding of
liability in this administrative proceedings against respondent, as, in fact,
we find respondent Chua failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty
to his office by attending to the fact that the alleged party, Chua Beng,
appeared before him and signed the deed when in truth and in fact said
person did not so participate in the execution thereof. Emphatically, this
finding does not in any way preempt the trial court on whatever decision it
will issue on the criminal cases against respondent Chua.
II. We shall jointly discuss the second ground (Ground II) together with
Ground VI, VI-A, VI-B, and VI-C, as said charges emanate from, or is
related to, the filing of a case with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC Case No. 3328), involving the Uy family members and
another case with the civil court (Case No. 95-9051) involving their
properties.
Complainant charges respondent Chua, under the second ground of her
complaint, of foisting falsehood and falsified a document to obtain a notice
of lis pendens. We find documentary evidence to sustain the conclusion that
indeed a Notice of Lis Pendens was filed in relation to SEC Case No. 3328
(Exhibit "J", Annex "F", Complaint), to which was attached a copy of the
Petition with page one thereof containing an apparent erasure to omit the
statement that it is "For: Turn over of Books of Account, Sums of Money
and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction". However,
the Petition and the Notice of Lis Pendens have been prepared and executed
by Ramon Encarnacion or his law firm. It does not appear from the
documents, neither is there credible testimonial evidence, that respondent
Chua directly participated in the unlawful acts complained of. The fact that
respondent Chua was not the lawyer for the petitioners in the said SEC case
is even admitted by complainant in her complaint (Complaint, paragraph
15, page 11).
However, there is evidence that respondent Chua subsequently took action
to appeal the denial by the Registry of Deeds of the application for the
registration of the Notice of Lis Pendens to the Land Registration
Commission, which eventually sustained the decision of the former, in a
Resolution dated September 21, 1995, which denied the application on the
ground that the real party in interest in the SEC case, the registered property
owner SK Realty, Inc., was not impleaded in the suit.
It also appears that respondent Chua filed a similar action in the civil court
while the SEC case was pending adjudication, an action claimed to amount
to forum shopping, intended to enable respondent's clients to annotate a
notice of lis pendens on the titles of the properties which were the same
subject of an earlier SEC petition and application for a notice of lis
pendens. Respondent Chua cannot deny the institution of the civil
complaint (Annex "Q", Complaint for Disbarment). The civil complaint,
Civil Case No. 95-9051, shows that SK Realty, Inc., which was not a party
in the SEC case, was impleaded this time as party plaintiff. The causes of
action and the reliefs sought therein seem to differ from those stated in the
SEC case. In the civil case, the plaintiffs seek judgment specifically as
follows:
xxxx
We cannot, however, ignore the resolution of the trial court in Civil Case
No. 95-9051 dated November 9, 1995, which found that while ostensibly
the causes of action in the civil action is different from the SEC Case, it
held that "in the final analysis the same x x x issues confront these cases."
(Exhibit P at page 5) and it, therefore, concluded that respondent's clients
were guilty of forum shopping.
Indeed, while it would appear that respondent Chua was not the counsel of
the petitioners in SEC CASE No. 3328, his action to have a notice of lis
pendens annotated at the Register of Deeds and his appeal to the LRC
indicate his clear knowledge of the pending action. Clearly, while there is
no sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for the charge of committing
fraud in the filing of notice of lis pendens in relation to the SEC case, or for
falsification of page one of the SEC petition as attached to the notice,
respondent not being privy thereto, we are not prepared, however, to say
that he is "off the hook" on the forum shopping charge. As we have earlier
pointed out, the pleadings in the SEC case and in Civil Case No. 95-9051,
may appear to have different causes of action and parties. But here is the
catch. The SEC rendered a decision, dated May 3, 1995, which directed,
among others, the cancellation and annulment of "the transfer certificate of
titles in the name of Soon Kee Commercial, Inc. if any, the certificate of
titles in the name of SK Realty, Inc., if any, and the certificate of titles in
the name of New Challenge Resources, if still there is, and all the
properties formerly belonging to and in the name of UBS, presently
totalling eight (8) lots TCT No. 141057, TCT No. 141058, TCT No.
141059, TCT No. 141060, TCT No. 141061, TCT No. 141062, TCT No.
141063, TCT No. 14106 and reverting them back to UBS Marketing
Corporation." The Decision was published and even quoted in the Visayan
daily Star, the issue of June 6, 1995, at respondent Chua's behest and
expense. The decision was later appealed to the SEC Commission en banc.
Respondent Chua was undoubtedly aware that white the SEC petition did
not make any references to the real properties, the decision of the SEC gave
reliefs in relation thereto. Therefore, when respondent filed a complaint,
Civil Case No. 95-9051 (Annex "Q", Disbarment complaint), on September
18, 1995, he was aware that the forum shopping prohibition could be
violated and yet he submitted a "Verification" in his civil complaint, which
was for reconveyance and cancellation of titles, that there is no "'prior
action or proceedings involving the same issues, as herein raised has been
filed with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court or any other tribunal or
agency." He knew that the controversy on the properties was pending with
the SEC, or was pending appeal, initiated by SK Realty and New Challenge
Resources, Inc., with the Court of Appeals [CA-G.R. No. 37541 and SEC
Case No. 520]. The fact that the relief granted by the SEC gearing
officer has not yet been set aside when respondent initiated the civil
case and that he was aware of this fact should be enough reason for
him to be made answerable for making false representation and forum
shopping. It is also worth noting the fact that when the civil complaint was
filed on September 18, 1995, the appeal in Consulta No. 2334, with respect
to the Notice of Lis Pendens, was still unresolved. The decision of the LRC
Administrator came only on September 21, 1995 (Annex "K", Disbarment
Case). Ignorance of a pending action on the properties subject of the SEC
case cannot, therefore, be invoked by respondent. Respondent is
answerable for misconduct under Canon 12.02.
III. On the third ground (Ground III, III-A and III-B) that respondent Chua
caused the publication of new reports and paid advertisement/notice about
the issuance of a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
there is sufficient evidence to sustain complainant's charges.
Undeniably, respondent Chua did not act as counsel for any of the parties in
the SEC case, although it is safe to say that he represented some of the
protagonist in other matters or cases. It is likewise undenied that the
decision of the SEC hearing officer in Case No. 3328 was favorable to
respondent Chua's clients. Respondent Chua, being a lawyer, should have
known that the said decision was appealable. When he published the
decision, he courted a possible sanction for contempt. Here, we cannot
excuse him from such misconduct for it behooves him to even exert earnest
efforts towards the settlement of family disputes and certainly he should be
the last to exacerbate and complicate the controversial situation in which
family members are embroiled. By his publication, [respondent] has
violated the canons of professional ethics and professional responsibility,
particularly Canon 19, 27, 3.01, 13.02, 1.03 and 1.04.
xxxx
 In view of our observation and finding that the charges against
respondent for forum shopping, committing falsehood, injurious,
willful and unprofessional conduct of publishing, or causing the
publication, in a newspaper of general circulation, of a pending case,
causing undue delay in the court proceeding and for notarizing a
document without the party being present, to be supported by evidence
and meritorious, it is hereby recommended that respondent be suspended
for a total of three (3) years for all his acts of misconduct. Respondent Chua
has, by his unprofessional conduct, violated Rule 10.01, 12.02, 12.04
(foisting or commission of false hood, forum shopping and causing delay in
court proceedings), Canon 19 (failing to resort to lawful means in
representing client), 27, 3.01, 13.02 (causing undue publication of pending
action). Having been previously found guilty of misconduct by the Hon.
Supreme Court and warned of a more stern penalty should he commit
another breach of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, respondent's
penalty would even seem light.[2] (Emphasis supplied.)

On the basis of the foregoing report, a unanimous Court in its Decision of April
30, 1099 adjudged respondent guilty of grave misconduct and meted upon him the
penalty of disbarment, noting as follows:

We fully agree with the Investigating Commissioner in his findings of facts

and conclusion of culpability x x x. Indeed, the misconduct of respondent,
which this case has unfolded, is grave and serious that brings dishonor to
the legal profession. Committed in succession and within a short time, the
misconduct exposes a habit, attitude, and mindset not only to abuse one's
legal knowledge or training, but also to deliberately defy or ignore known
virtues and values which the legal profession demands from its members.[3]

On September 3, 2002, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment. In

it, respondent beseeched the Court to readmit him to the Bar, claiming that he had been
sufficiently disciplined and punished and undertaking to prove himself to be worthy once
again to be a member of the legal profession. Not finding any reason to grant his plea,
this Court, by Resolution of November 19, 2002, denied respondent's motion for lack of
merit.

Respondent is again before this Court via the instant Second Ex-Parte Petition for
Reinstatement dated October 24, 2011, reiterating his request to be readmitted to the Bar.
In this present petition, respondent alleges the following: complainant Ban Hua Flores
herself is sympathetic to his plight; his age and the long period of his disbarment have
afforded him sufficient time and occasion to cleanse himself of his conduct; he had been
acquitted of the criminal charge for falsification[4] arising from his notarization of the
Deed of Sale by the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City; the case for libel[5] filed
against him arising from the publication of the Decision in SEC Case No. 3328 had
resulted in his acquittal; the perjury charge against him for his alleged forum shopping in
filing Civil Case No. 93-9051 despite the pendency of SEC Case No. 3328 has been
quashed,[6] and since this Court had declared that "the controversy subject of SEC Case
No. 3328 is an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the SEC under Section 5(b) of PD No. 902-A,"[7] then "Civil Case No. 95-
9051, where respondent was the counsel, filed during the pendency of SEC Case No.
3328/520, is not covered by the rule against forum shopping."[8]

In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu City, this
Court held that the "sole object of the Court upon an application for reinstatement to
practice, by one previously disbarred, is to determine whether or not the applicant has
satisfied and convinced the Court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward
the rehabilitation of his character has been successful, and, therefore, he is entitled to be
re-admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an office of trust."[9]

While respondent may have been acquitted of the criminal charges arising from
the same acts for which he was disbarred, We see no reason to grant his request for
readmission to the practice of law. His acquittal in the case for falsification against him
was based on the compromise agreement entered into among the parties concerned in the
execution of the deed of sale, particularly, private complainant Silvinia Chua and
respondent's co-defendant, Yu Seng. It was not due to a categorical finding by the trial
court that he did not commit the crime charged. Similarly, his acquittal in the libel case
was attributable to the prosecution's failure to meet the quantum of evidence necessary
for a criminal convictionproof beyond reasonable doubt. It need not be emphasized
that the evidence required in disbarment cases is only a clear preponderance of
evidence,[10] a less demanding requirement in the hierarchy of evidence. Hence, while
respondent may not be criminally liable, Our findings of his administrative liability still
stand. Indeed, We have repeatedly held that the acquittal in a criminal case does not
determine the results of a disbarment proceeding, since "the standards of [the] legal
profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties
of x x x criminal law."[11]

Parenthetically, this Court has seriously considered giving respondent a second

chance to prove himself worthy of membership in the legal profession. After all, as he
has repeatedly pointed out, the penalty of disbarment is imposed "on the preservative and
not on the vindictive principle."[12] However, respondent's less than candid assertion that
he has not committed forum shopping leaves this Court sceptical of the sincerity of his
claim that he has "cleansed himself of his conduct," or at the very least, of his remorse.

Respondent stressed that his filing of Civil Case No. 95-9051, despite the
pendency of SEC Case No. 3328, did not violate the rule against forum shopping,
because this Court held in UBS Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals that SEC
Case No. 3328 is an "intracorporate controversy which falls within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC x x x."[13] Respondent, however, failed to mention that
the case did not treat of the issue of the existence of forum shopping or of Civil Case No.
95-9051, but merely ruled on the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission
to hear and decide SEC Case No. 3328. Worse still, respondent neglected to mention Our
ruling in SK Realty, Inc. v. Uy,[14] where We categorically stated that Civil Case No. 95-
9051 was filed in contravention of the rule on forum-shopping:

The decisive issue posed by petitioners is whether respondents' filing of the

complaint for reconveyance of properties, cancellation of titles (TCT Nos.
T-141057 to T-141064), damages and accounting, docketed as Civil Case
No. 95-9051 in the RTC, Branch 43, Bacolod City, constitutes forum-
shopping. It bears stressing that prior to the filing of this civil case, the
same respondent filed with the SEC a complaint against petitioners for
recovery of the same parcels of lands, books of accounts and funds. This
SEC case finally reached this Court as G.R. No. 130328 now pending
resolution.
This very issue has been resolved by this Court in Adm. Case No. 4500,
entitled "Ban Hua U. Flores vs. Atty. Enrique S. Chua," wherein respondent
was declared guilty, among others, of forum-shopping and ordered
disbarred from the practice of law. In our Per Curiam Decision, we
sustained not only the charges of falsification, forgery of a deed of sale, and
unprofessional conduct against him, but also of forum shopping. He was
the former counsel of the respondents in the instant case. Although he knew
that his clients had filed SEC Case No. 3328 for recovery of corporate
books, funds and properties, he still filed Civil Case No. 95-9051 for
reconveyance of the same properties and cancellation of titles against
petitioners. We adopted the finding of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
that he (Atty. Chua) is guilty of forum-shopping, thus:
xxxx
Going back to the instant case, it may be recalled that the SEC Hearing
Officer rendered a decision in favor of respondents. However, it was
reversed by the SEC En Banc. Hence, they filed with the Court of Appeals
a petition for certiorari, and later, a petition for review on certiorari with
this Court.
Meanwhile, although respondents' petition was still pending before the SEC
En Banc, they filed with the RTC Civil Case No. 95-9051 against
petitioners. In doing so, respondents' intention was to obtain a favorable
decision in another forum. Apparently, they filed Civil Case No. 95-9051
on the supposition that they would win in this case.
It bears emphasis that when respondents filed Civil Case No. 95-9051 for
reconveyance of properties and cancellation of titles, they knew that there
 was a similar case between the same parties pending before the SEC En
Banc (later elevated to the Court of Appeals and this Court).
Clearly, respondents resorted to forum-shopping, one of the reasons
why Atty. Enrique S. Chua, their former counsel, was disbarred from
the practice of law. Indeed, the trial court was correct in dismissing
respondents' complaint in Civil Case No. 95-9051 on the ground of
forum-shopping.[15] (Emphasis supplied.)

Membership in the legal profession is an office of trust. The adverted dubious

omissions in respondent's Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement fail to convince
this Court that respondent is worthy of the public's trust and confidence, and, thus, fit to
discharge the duties of a member of the Philippine bar. Bluntly, there is not a scintilla of
compelling proof that respondent has reformed and cleansed himself of his conduct.

WHEREFORE, respondent's Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement is

hereby DENIED."

Del Castillo, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Endnotes:
[1]
Flores v. Chua, A.C. No. 4500, 306 SCRA 465.
[2]
Id. at 477-483.
[3]
Id. at 483-484.
[4]
People v. Chua, Criminal Case No. 12036 and People v. Yu Seng, Criminal Case No.
12037, February 24, 2010.
[5]
People v. Chua, Criminal Case No. 09-32938, May 30, 2011.
[6]
Enrique S. Chua v. Judge Rojo, Civil Case No. 02-11838, March 12, 2004.
[7]
Second Ex-Parte Petition for Reinstatement, p. 5; citing UBS Marketing Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130328, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 534, 538.
[8]
Id.
[9]
A.C No. 270, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 240, 241.
[10]
Commission on Higher Education v. Dasig, G.R. No. 172776, December 17, 2008,
574 SCRA 227, 242-243; Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529
SCRA 1, 20-21.
[11]
Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, September 29,
1999, 315 SCRA 406, 412.
[12]
Gatmaytan, Jr. v. Ilao, A.C. No. 6086, January 26, 2005, 449 SCRA 269, 270, citing
De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 (1939).
[13]
Supra note 7.
[14]
G.R. No. 144282, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 239. See also SK Realty v. Uy, G.R. No.
144282, January 17, 2005 (Resolution)