Republic of the Philippines GESMUNDO, J:

Supreme Court, Manila Before the Court is an Administrative

Complaint1 filed by complainants Manuel L.
Valin (Manuel) and Honorio L. Valin (Honorio)
EN BANC with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines -
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
committing forgery and falsification of a deed of
absolute sale, in breach of his lawyer’s oath and
A.C. No. 10564
in violation of the laws.

MANUEL L. VALIN AND HONORIO L. VALIN ...

The complainants averred that they are two of
Complainants
the surviving children of their deceased parents,
spouses Pedro F. Valin (Pedro) and Cecilia
Lagadon (Cecilia). Pedro was the original
versus registered owner of a parcel of land (subject
land) located in San Andres, Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan, with an area of 833 square meters and
ATTY. ROLANDO T. RUIZ ... Respondent covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
P-3275(S).2

PRESENT: SERENO, CJ; CARPIO; VELASCO, JR*;

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO*; PERALTA; BERSAMIN; Pedro died on December 7, 1992 while he was
DEL CASTILLO*; PERLAS-BERNABE*; LEONEN; in Oahu, Honolulu, Hawaii.3
JARDELEZA**; CAGUIOA; MARTIRES; TIJAM;
REYES, JR AND GESMUNDO, JJ
Several years later, Honorio discovered that the
subject land has been transferred to
Promulgated: November 7, 2017 respondent, the godson of Pedro, resulting in
the cancellation of OCT No. P-3275(S), and the
issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-11655(s)4 in the name of respondent. He
learned from the Register of Deeds of Sanchez
Mira, Cagayan (RD) that the subject land was
conveyed to respondent in consideration of
DECISION P10,000.00 by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
(subject deed),5 dated July 15, 1996, and
executed in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
purportedly by Pedro with the alleged consent
of his spouse, Cecilia.
Respondent also denied having knowledge
regarding the execution of the subject deed in
1996. He insisted that he neither falsified the
The complainants alleged that the subject deed said deed and Pedro’s CTC No. 2259388 nor
was obviously falsified and the signatures forged the signatures of Pedro and Cecilia as it
therein of Pedro and Cecilia were forgeries was Rogelio who processed the transfer of the
because Pedro was already dead and Cecilia title of the subject land in his name. He
was in Hawaii at that time. They also asserted explained that when the subject land was sold
that Pedro’s Community Tax Certificate (CTC) in 1989, Rogelio, as the vendor, undertook to
No. 2259388, which was used to identify Pedro process the transfer of the title of the subject
in the deed, was also falsified as it was issued
land. Respondent further clarified that in 1996,
only on January 2, 1996 long after Pedro’s he instructed his house helper, Judelyn Baligad
death. The complainants pointed to respondent (Baligad), to sign the release of the title in his
as the author of the falsifications and forgeries name because at that time he was busy to go to
because the latter caused the registration of the the RD to sign the release for himself as per
subject land unto his name and because he was instruction of Rogelio’s messenger.9
the one who benefited from the same.

In their Reply,10 the complainants stressed that

In his Answer,6 respondent claimed that the document, which was a falsified deed, was
Rogelio L. Valin (Rogelio), one of the children of
executed in 1996. They also pointed out that
Pedro and Cecilia, sold the subject land to him records from the RD revealed that on August
sometime in 1989 allegedly in representation of 19, 1996, the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No.
Pedro. He recalled that Rogelio approached him T-11655(s) was released to Baligad, the
for financial assistance to defray the expenses housemaid of respondent. In fact, respondent
of the surgical operation of his son. Rogelio admitted in his answer that he instructed
offered to sell the subject land and claimed that
Baligad to pick up the said copy from the RD as
it was his share in their family’s properties. he was busy at that time. Thus, respondent’s
Respondent agreed to buy the subject land out sweeping denial of any knowledge with respect
of compassion. He asked Rogelio for his to the subject deed is unmeritorious and his
authority to sell the subject land but the latter claim of good faith must be denied.
claimed that he could not locate his authority
from his parents in their house.7 Respondent
claimed that he knew that it was hard to
transfer the title because the title owner, In his Rejoinder,11 respondent imputed the
Pedro, was out of the country at the time of the falsification of the deed to Rogelio arguing that
sale and without a Special Power of Attorney he must have forged the signatures of his
(SPA) for the purpose; thus, Rogelio undertook parents in his attempt to have the title of the
to transfer the title.8 subject land transferred to respondent.
After the parties submitted their respective Resolution No. XXI-2014-98,14 dated March 21,
position papers, the case was submitted for the 2014.
IBP-CBD’s resolution.

Dissatisfied, respondent filed a petition before

Report and Recommendation the Court arguing that:

In its Report and Recommendation,12 dated I.

April 26, 2011, the IBP- CBD found respondent
to be unfit to be entrusted with the powers of
an attorney. It reasoned that as the beneficiary THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES -
of the falsified deed, respondent was presumed BOARD OF GOVERNORS COMMITTED
to be the author thereof. The IBP-CBD opined REVERSIBLE ERROR TANTAMOUNT TO GRAVE
that he failed to overcome this presumption ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON A QUESTION OF LAW
despite his attempt to deflect the blame to IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTIONS DATED MARCH
Rogelio for his failure to adduce evidence in 20, 2013 AND MARCH 21, 2014 BY
support of his claim. CONCLUDING [RESPONDENT] HAS COMMITTED
A MISCONDUCT IN HIS PRACTICE OF LAW AND
AS A CONSEQUENCE RECOMMENDED HIS
The IBP-CBD also dismissed respondent’s claim SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW;
that the transaction was a private one and not
in connection with his profession. It emphasized
that good moral character and moral fitness II.
transcends the professional personality of a
lawyer. Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended the
suspension of respondent from the practice of
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT INTEGRATED BAR OF
law for a period of two (2) years.
THE PHILIPPINES - BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAS
COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR TANTAMOUNT
TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BECAUSE
In its Resolution No. XX-2013-207,13 dated THERE WAS NO FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS IN
March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors THE CHARGES AGAINST THE [RESPONDENT]
(IBP Board) resolved to adopt and approve the FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, MUCH MORE AS A
report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD for BASIS FOR HIS SUSPENSION FROM THE
the suspension of respondent from the practice PRACTICE OF LAW AS THE EXTANT OF THE
of law for a period of two (2) years. RECORDS IS DEVOID OF ANY SUPPORT AND FOR
BEING GLARINGLY ERRONEOUS.15

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration

but the IBP Board denied it in the assailed
Respondent avers that in 1989, he initially whether they are dealing with their clients or
declined to buy the subject property from the public at large, and a violation of the high
Rogelio because he could not produce his moral standards of the legal profession justifies
authority to sell the land; that he sympathized the imposition of the appropriate penalty,
with Rogelio, thus, he was convinced to buy the including suspension and disbarment.19
subject property with the understanding that
the latter would take the necessary steps to
transfer the title in respondent’s name; that he Further, the lawyer's oath enjoins every lawyer
acted in good faith in dealing with Rogelio in his not only to obey the laws of the land but also to
private capacity and he paid P26,000.00 for the refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
consideration of the sale; that the subject deed court or from consenting to the doing of any in
executed in 1996 does not show any court, and to conduct himself according to the
participation on the part of respondent; and best of his knowledge and discretion with all
that the written authority to sell of Rogelio good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
actually existed and is attached in his petition, clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and
but it was not presented before the IBP. has to observe and maintain the rule of law as
well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by
others. It is by no means a coincidence,
In a Resolution,16 dated October 14, 2014, the therefore, that the core values of honesty,
Court required the complainants to file their integrity, and trustworthiness are emphatically
comment within ten (10) days from notice reiterated by the CPR. In this light, Rule 10.01,
thereof. The complainants, however, failed to Canon 10 of the CPR provides that “[a] lawyer
file the required comment within the stated shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
period.17 On March 1, 2016, the case was doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
submitted for resolution.18 allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”20

The Court’s Ruling It bears stressing that membership in the bar is

a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer
has the privilege and right to practice law
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of during good behavior and can only be deprived
fact of the IBP-CBD and the recommendation of of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by
the IBP Board. judgment of the court after opportunity to be
heard has afforded him. Without invading any
constitutional privilege or right, and attorney's
right to practice law may be resolved by a
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on
Responsibility (CPR) states that “[a] lawyer shall
conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
deceitful conduct.” Lawyers must conduct
attorney.21 In disbarment proceedings, the
themselves beyond reproach at all times,
burden of proof rests upon the complainant,
and for the court to exercise its disciplinary not equivalent to proof’ (Real vs. Belo, 513
powers, the case against the respondent must [SCRA] 111). Moreover the Commission finds it
be established by clear, convincing and unbelievable that after seven (7) years, Rogelio
satisfactory proof.22 Valin will be bothered by his conscience for not
fulfilling his commitment to transfer OCT No. P-
3275(s) in the name of his father, Pedro Valin,
In this case, the complainants allege that to the name of the respondent by falsifying a
respondent breached his lawyer’s oath and Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1996 and
violated the law because he falsified the subject making it appear that his deceased father,
deed of sale in 1996 to acquire the land of Pedro Valin, sold OCT No. P-3275 to herein
Pedro even though the latter died in 1992. On respondent and in the process risk being sued
the other hand, respondent claims that he had for falsification of public documents. Moreover,
nothing to do with the sale in 1996; rather, he records will show that Rogelio Valin was one of
imputes the execution of the subject deed and the complainants who filed cases against the
its registration to Rogelio, brother of the respondent in connection with the subject
complainants. property. Such posturing runs counter to
respondent’s insinuation that Rogelio Valin was
the culprit in the falsification of the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 15,1996.23
The Court finds that respondent violated the
lawyer’s oath, Rule 1.01 and 10.01 of the CPR.

From the time that the sale of the subject land

was negotiated in 1989 until it was executed
Respondent’s disclaimer as to his participation
and registered through the subject deed in
in the forged deed of absolute sale is incredible
1996, there were patent irregularities, which
as he benefited from it
respondent cannot ignore.

As pointed out in the IBP-CBD Report and

First, in 1989, respondent admitted that he
Recommendation:
entered into with Rogelio a contract of deed of
sale over the subject property owned and
registered to Pedro without any SPA. As a
The respondent would like the Commission to lawyer, he knows that “[w]hen a sale of a piece
believe that Rogelio Valin authored the of land or any interest therein is through an
falsification of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated agent, the authority of the latter shall be in
July 15,1996, present the same to the Register writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.”24
of Deeds so that a new title can be issued in his Respondent even admitted that it would be
name. Such allegations are specious at best. No difficult to transfer the title of the subject land
evidence had been adduced by the respondent because the title owner Pedro is out of the
to substantiate such allegation. “Bare country at the time of the sale and without a
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are SPA for that purpose.25 As early as 1989,
respondent was aware that the sale of the 1996.28 Evidently, respondent was
subject land without proper authorization was knowledgeable that the title was issued in his
null and void. name because he instructed his house helper to
finalize the release of the title.

Second, in spite of the deficient SPA from

Rogelio’s father, respondent allowed many Respondent was neither surprised nor doubtful
years to pass without probing him regarding the of the title’s release in his name in 1996. He
sale of the land. He did not exert any effort to never attempted to contact Rogelio to verify if
communicate with Rogelio. In all those times, he was the one who transferred the property to
respondent did not demand from Rogelio his his name. He also did not immediately request
written authority to sell the subject land to the production of his authority to sell the
ensure that the sale would have a mark of subject land. Respondent had the opportunity
regularity considering that he had paid the and resources to verify the veracity of the
purchase price. He continued to ignore the subject deed in 1996, which caused the transfer
reality that Rogelio was precluded to sell the of Pedro’s land to him. Regrettably, he
subject land without the SPA of his parents. This continued to feign ignorance of the
is obviously contrary to human experience. irregularities that attended the transaction.

Third, it is a difficult pill to swallow that Fifth, the subject deed executed in 1996 was
respondent was oblivious of Pedro’s death in readily available at the RD. Respondent could
1992. He admitted in his petition that he is a have effortlessly and briefly verified the said
close family friend and godson of Pedro.26 deed, which was the basis of the transfer of the
Certainly, he could not claim such strong ties to title to him. It is to be noted that the subject
the family of Pedro if he never heard about the deed was not signed by Rogelio on behalf of
latter’s demise. Even after the lapse of four (4) Pedro; rather, it was purportedly signed by
years or in 1996, it would be arduous to believe Pedro personally and confirmed by Cecilia.
that respondent was still ignorant of the demise Evidently, the sale contemplated by the said
of his close family friend and godfather. deed was not anymore a sale through an agent,
which was the original agreement of
respondent and Rogelio back in 1989. The
Fourth, in 1996, respondent directed his house consideration stated in the subject deed, in the
helper Baligad to sign the release of the title in amount of P10,000.00, did not reflect the
his name. He admitted in his answer that he alleged purchase price of P26,000.00 given by
instructed Baligad to go to the RD and sign for respondent in 1989.
him the release of the title because he was busy
at that time.27 Conchita P. Baustita, a former
employee of the RD, also attested that Baligad Further, the subject deed was executed in
indeed came to the RD to sign the release of the Tugegarao, Cagayan when respondent knows
title in behalf of respondent on August 19, fully well that Pedro and Cecilia are residing in
Hawaii as early as 1989. In the same light, it been numerous occasions that respondent
would be impossible to notarize the subject could have stopped and noted the red flags
deed in 1996 before a notary public considering apparent throughout the transaction.
that Pedro was already dead. Also, the subject Disappointingly, he chose to profit from the
deed mentioned CTC No. 2259388, dated falsified deed, devoid of any empathy that his
January 2, 1996, issued to Pedro, which is actions would damage innocent third persons.
patently falsified because Pedro has passed Respondent’s acts are inconsistent with the
away at that time. Again, respondent did not sacred oath to do no falsehood nor consent to
bother to even read the subject deed of sale the doing of any.
which contains obvious and palpable
irregularities; rather, he continued to disregard
them for his own convenience. Respondent cannot finger point culpability to
Rogelio

Sixth, as a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of

the requisites for the legality of deed of sale Respondent attempts to impute the falsification
and its registration. He knows how important it of the subject deed and Pedro’s CTC to Rogelio
is to ensure that the registered instrument is because it was the latter who allegedly
complete and regular on its face. He is also promised to transfer the title of the subject
duty-bound to denounce illegally acquired land.
deeds of sale, which deceive and betray the
general public. Instead of assailing its validity,
respondent continuously and completely
The Court is not convinced.
utilized to his benefits the subject land obtained
through the falsified deed. As reflected in TCT
No. T-11655(s), he even mortgaged the subject
land to Philippine National Bank, Sanchez Mira It is highly unbelievable that, after seven (7)
Branch as a security for a loan.29 years and without any communication or notice
whatsoever,30 Rogelio will suddenly process
the transfer of Pedro’s property to respondent
out of sheer goodwill and that he was willing to
In fine, the Court is convinced that respondent
move to great lengths to fulfill his promise by
is the author or, at the very least, has connived
falsifying the signature of his dead father in
with the author of the subject deed and Pedro’s
disposing his parents’ land. Curiously,
CTC for his personal benefits. Respondent
respondent failed to show proof that he
incessantly closed his eyes until he became
demanded from Rogelio to effect the transfer
blind to the anomalies surrounding the sale of
the subject land; respondent did not even see
the subject land. Whether through deliberate
him anymore after 1989.31 Rogelio has left for
intent or gross negligence, he participated in
Hawaii and have been residing there up to the
the successful registration and release of the
present.32
title that originated from an absolutely falsified
deed of sale. As discussed above, there have
Further, the subject deed of sale does not even confessed that it was not existing at the time of
reflect the name of Rogelio, but it was signed by the alleged sale in 1989.
Pedro and Cecilia. The sale manifested by the
said deed was not anymore a sale through an
agent, which was the agreement between Further, the purported written authority
respondent and Rogelio back in 1989. Rogelio deserves scant consideration. The said authority
does not have any more participation in the was allegedly executed by Pedro at Sanchez
subject deed. Indubitably, since respondent is Mira, Cagayan on September 13, 1989.
the ultimate beneficiary of the falsified deed of However, respondent earlier admitted that in
sale, he is presumed to be the author of the 1989, Pedro was out of the country,35 thus, he
subject deed. could not have signed the same.

The purported written authority of Pedro is The written authority is immaterial because
immaterial Pedro died in 1992 and it had lost its force and
effect then. It cannot be used for any purpose
whatsoever. Moreover, the subject deed in
In his last ditch attempt to evade responsibility, 1996 was not anymore a sale through an agent
respondent presented for the first time on as it was purportedly signed by Pedro and
appeal a purported written authority, dated Cecilia personally. Thus, the written authority is
September 13, 1989, signed by Pedro irrelevant in the subject deed.
permitting Rogelio to sell the subject land.33
The said authority is originally captioned as a
special power of attorney; however, it bore an In any case, respondent must face the music in
erasure and it reads as an authorization of view of his questionable actions regarding the
attorney. registration and release of the subject title
through the falsified deed.

The written authority, however, is irrelevant

and incredible in light of the circumstances in That the transaction is private in nature, not in
the present case. relation to the practice of law, is notan excuse;
proper penalties

Respondent plainly admitted that the title

owner Pedro is out of the country at the time of Respondent violated the lawyer’s oath and Rule
the sale and Rogelio was without a SPA for that 1.01 and 10.01 of the CPR when he participated
purpose.34 Thus, the Court wonders how the and benefited from the falsified deed. Even
said written authority suspiciously conjured though he acted in his personal capacity in the
itself out of thin air when respondent had improper sale and registration of the subject, he
is not excused from liability.
 In this case, respondent participated in the
registration and release of subject title in his
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed favor with the use of the falsified deed of sale.
even in his private capacity for acts which tend Pedro has long been dead when the subject
to bring reproach on the legal profession or to
deed was executed. Respondent did not do
injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. anything to verify the validity of the subject
There is no distinction as to whether the deed and its registration in spite of the
transgression is committed in a lawyer's private numerous badges of fraud. He is presumed the
life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer author as he was the only beneficiary thereof.
may not divide his personality as an attorney at Because of his actions, the complainants were
one time and a mere citizen at another.36 deprived with their share as compulsory heirs.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD and the
Jurisprudence provides different ranges of resolution of the IBP Board that respondent
penalties in cases where the lawyer participates should be meted with the penalty of suspension
in the execution of a falsified deed involving a from the practice of law for two years.
dead party. In Magaway v. Avecilla,37 the erring
lawyer notarized a deed of sale even though the
party was already dead for 27 years and he was WHEREFORE, Atty. Rolando T. Ruiz is found
suspended from the practice of law for one guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01
year. In Serzo v. Flores,38 the erring lawyer and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
notarized a deed of absolute sale when one of Responsibility. The Court hereby SUSPENDS him
the parties had long been dead and he was from the practice of law for two (2) years
suspended from the practice of law for two effective immediately, with a STERN WARNING
years. that the repetition of a similar violation will be
dealt with even more severely. He is DIRECTED
to report the date of his receipt of this Decision
On the other hand, in Sicat v. Ariola, Jr.,39 the to enable this Court to determine when his
Court imposed the ultimate penalty of suspension shall take effect.
disbarment against a lawyer who falsified a
special power of attorney, which led to the
wrongful encashment of a check worth Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the
P3,700,000.00 to the prejudice of the
Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into
government. In Velasco v. Doroin,40 two erring respondent Atty. Rolando T. Ruiz's records.
lawyers forged a deed of sale and they forced Copies shall likewise be furnished to the
complainant to sign the deed of extrajudicial Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office
settlement to deprive her of her share. One of of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
the lawyers was suspended indefinitely; while courts concerned.
the other was disbarred for absconding the
criminal case against him.

SO ORDERED.
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO (On Official Leave)

Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

(On Official Leave)

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Chief Justice Associate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On Official Leave) (On Leave)

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On Official Leave) ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice

Associate Justice

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice

Associate Justice

NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice

Associate Justice
ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

Associate Justice