Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997

LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

In a sworn complaint for disbarment dated 31 October 1994 but received by us on 21 November
1994, complainant Lourdes R. Busiños charged respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort, a practicing
lawyer in Oas, Albay with having committed the crime of estafa under Article 315(1) (b) of the
Revised Penal Code by misappropriating the sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00
was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank account of complainant's husband, while
P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a
bond in Civil Case No. 5814, when no such bond was required.

In the resolution of 18 January 1995, we required respondent to comment on the complaint.

Despite his receipt of a copy of the resolution, respondent did not comply, compelling us in the
resolution of 17 July 1995 to require him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt
with or held in contempt for such failure.

Again respondent failed to comply. Hence in the resolution of 25 September 1996, we ordered
him once more to file his comment within ten (10) days from notice, and within the same period,
to pay a fine of P1,000.00 or suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days should he fail to so pay. In a
Compliance and Motion dated 24 October 1996, respondent transmitted the fine of P1,000.00 by
way of postal money order, but asked for five (5) days from date to file his comment. As
respondent still failed to so file, we then declared, in the resolution of 2 December 1996, that
respondent was deemed to have waived his right to file his comment, and referred the complaint
to the Office of the Bar Confidant for reception of complainant's evidence and submission of a
report and recommendation thereon.

On 16 October 1997, the Bar Confidant, Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa, submitted her Report and
Recommendation, material portions of which read as follows:
Respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort stands charged with having misappropriated the sum
of P30,000.00 intended for his clients as well as having deceived his clients into giving
him the sum of P2,000.00 purportedly to be deposited as a bond in the case he was
handling.

Complainant Lourdes R. Businos is one of the heirs of Pedro Rodrigo who are the
defendants in Civil Case No. 1584, apparently a case involving the properties of the late
Pedro Rodrigo, father of herein complainant. Respondent was the counsel of record for
the defendants in the said case. On July 10, 1994, complainant, representing her co-heirs,
executed a special power of attorney, appointing and constituting respondent and/or
Pedro Rodrigo, Jr. to be her true and lawful attorney-in-fact with the following powers:

1. To attend to and represent me, testify, or otherwise enter into

compromise during the pre-trial stage or other proceedings in Civil Case
No. 1584, entitled "Heirs of Rosario Rodrigo-Reantaso, vs. Heirs of Pedro
Rodrigo Sr., et. al." now pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
12, Ligao, Albay;

2. To demand, collect and receipt for any and all sums of money that may
now be deposited in said court by the defendant Oas Standard High School
or hereafter be deposited by said defendant, due and owing to me or said
Heirs of Pedro Rodrigo, Sr., representing the rentals of said defendant for
the lease of the property involved in said case; and

3. To sign, authenticate, issue and deliver any and all deeds, instruments,
papers and other records necessary and pertinent to the above stated
transactions.

On August 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Br. 12 issued an order,
directing the Clerk of Court "to release any and all deposits of rentals made in connection
with this case (Civil Case No. 1584) to the defendants Heirs of Pedro Rodrigo through
Lourdes Rodrigo Businos who were receiving the rentals from Oas Standard High School
prior to the institution of this case."

In a letter dated August 10, 1994, the Clerk of Court of RTC, Ligao informed herein
complainant that respondent had already received the rental deposit of P25,000.00 on
even date (see Annex "C" to the complaint). Respondent also received from Oas Standard
High School on August 17, 1994 the sum of P5,000.00 as payment for rental of school
site for the month of July 1994 (See Annex "D" to the complaint). The said sum was
entrusted to respondent with an obligation on his part to deposit the same in the account
of complainant's husband at PNB, Ligao Branch. Instead, however, of depositing the
money, respondent converted the money to his own personal use, and despite several
demands, he failed to return the same to complainant. She was thus constrained to file a
criminal case for estafa and an administrative case for disbarment against him. Thus, on
November 21, 1994, complainant filed the instant administrative case against respondent.
Complainant further accuses respondent for demanding and receiving P2,000.00 from her
which he said will be used for the bond in Civil Case No. 1584, but said amount was
never used as intended since no bond was required in the said case. Thus, respondent
merely pocketed the said amount.

xxx xxx xxx

Complainant, upon questioning by the undersigned, testified that: She authorized

respondent to withdraw the money amounting P35,000.00 representing the rental fee paid
of Oas Standard High School from the Clerk of Court, with the instruction to deposit the
same in her savings account at the PNB. After she was informed by the court that
respondent had already withdrawn the money, she expected in vain to receive the money
a week later in Tarlac as respondent failed to effect the deposit of the said sum in her
account. She demanded from him to give her the money, but he informed her that he had
already spent the same. He promised, though, to pay her the said amount. (pp. 7-8, TSN,
Reception of Evidence, April 18, 1997). She clarified that respondent withdrew only the
sum of P30,000.00 from the Clerk of Court, while the P5,000.00 was withdrawn by
respondent from Oas Standard High School (TSN, p. 8). Despite several demands, both
from her and her lawyer, respondent failed to make good his promise to give her the
money he withdrew from the Clerk of Court and Oas Standard High School (TSN, pp.
11-13). She was then constrained to file a criminal case for estafa and an administrative
case against respondent sometime in November of 1994 to recover the money in question
(TSN, pp. 14-16). On their third hearing of the estafa case sometime in 1995, respondent
came with the money and paid complainant inside the courtroom (TSN, pp. 15, 19-20).
Because of this development, she did not anymore pursue the estafa case against
respondent (TSN, p. 17). She has no intention, however, of withdrawing the instant
complaint (TSN, p. 18).

She further testified that respondent demanded from her the sum of P2,000.00 for the
bond required in the civil case. (TSN, p. 18). Respondent did not give her a receipt for the
said amount. (TSN, p. 19). Respondent gave back the P2,000.00 to complainant. He paid
complainant a total of P60,000.00 representing the money he withdrew from the Clerk of
Court and Oas Standard High School, the P2,000.00 he got from complainant and
attorney's fees, which he undertook to foot as a way of settlement. (TSN, p. 19).

Although complainant failed to submit the original or certified true copies of the
documents in support of her complaint against respondent, respondent's repeated failure
to comply with several resolutions of the Court requiring him to comment on the
complaint lends credence to the allegations of the complainant. It manifests his tacit
admission thereto. We have no other alternative, therefore, but to accept the said
documents at their [sic] face value.

There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients
without their consent. As the evidentiary value of the documents should be given more
weight than the oral testimony of complainant, we place the amount illegally used by
respondent at P30,000.00 and not P35,000.00 as claimed by complainant. Respondent's
 illegal use of his client's money is made more manifest [by] his letters to complainant, all
promising the latter to make good his promise to pay the money he withdrew from the
Clerk of Court and Oas Standard High School (See Annex "E" to the complaint).

It bears emphasis that a lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for
money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He
is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his possession.
He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes
without his client's [sic] consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity
to private trust (Daroy vs. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304).

Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in

trust and must be immediately turned over to them (Aya vs. Bigornia, 57 Phil. 8).

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their
consent, and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00
purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him
by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has
besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

His belated payment of the amount he illegally used and fraudulently obtained do not
relieve him from any liability if only to impress upon him that the relation between an
attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting and
confidential character, requiring high degree of fidelity and good faith. In view of that
special relationship, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property
received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional
misconduct (Daroy vs. Legaspi, supra).

Moreover, his repeated failure to comply with the resolutions of the Court, requiring him
to comment on the complaint indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of respondent.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty.

Francisco Ricafort be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1)
YEAR.

While the findings are in order, the penalty recommended is not commensurate to respondent's
infractions.

Plainly, respondent breached Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
read:

Sec. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. — When an attorney unjustly

retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished
 for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions;
but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESS.

Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01. — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.

Rule 16.02. — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.

Rule 16.03. — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his unlawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of
Court.

Respondent's transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct and

grossly unethical behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the noble
profession to which he belongs, for it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the
profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and
confidence.

This Court has been nothing short of exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral
character from members of the Bar. In Marcelo v. Javier (A.C. No. 3248, 18 September 1992,
214 SCRA 1, 12-13), reiterated in Fernandez v. Grecia, (A.C. No. 3694, 17 June 1993, 223
SCRA 425, 434), this Court declared:

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The
trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard
and appreciation of his duty to his client, his profession, the courts and the public. The
bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end,
nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen
in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession.
Here, respondent chose to forget that by swearing the lawyer's oath, he became a guardian of
truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair an impartial administration
of justice — a vital function of democracy a failure of which is disastrous to society.

Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his
profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority. This is specially so,
as here, where respondent even deliberately defied the lawful orders of the Court for him to file
his comment on the complaint, thereby transgressing Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due the courts.

WHEREFORE, for dishonesty, grave misconduct, grossly unethical behavior in palpable

disregard of Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules
16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, aggravated by a
violation of Canon 11 thereof, and consistent with the urgent need to maintain the esteemed
traditions and high standards of the legal profession and to preserve undiminished public faith in
the members of the Philippine Bar, the Court Resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY.
FRANCISCO RICAFORT from the practice of law. His name is hereby stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.

This resolution shall take effect immediately and copies thereof furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record; the National Office and the Albay
Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the Philippine Judges Association; and all courts
of the land for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Francisco, Panganiban and Martinez, JJ., concur.
 FIRST DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 4943, January 26, 2001 ]
DIANA D. DE GUZMAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS,
RESPONDENT.

RESOLUTION
PARDO, J.:
The case before the Court is a complaint[1] for disbarment against Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios on the
ground of violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the code of Professional Responsibility, for
representing conflicting interests, and of Article 1491 Civil Code, for acquiring property in
litigation.

In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a

corporation, which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City.

On January 10, 1996, with the assistance of Atty. De Dios, complainant registered Suzuki Beach
Hotel, Inc. (SBHI) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. [2] Complainant paid on
respondent a monthly retainer fee of P5,000.00.

On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay her unpaid subscribed
shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred and thirty five thousand pesos
(P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997.

On January 29, 1998,[3] complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent
shares and a copy of a board resolution dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.
[4]
 Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the
incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted complainant from the corporation completely. While
respondent rose to be president of the corporation, complainant lost all her life's savings invested
therein.

Complainant alleged that she relied on the advice of Atty. De Dios and believed that as the
majority stockholder, Atty. de Dios would help her with the management of the corporation.

Complainant pointed out that respondent appeared as her counsel and signed pleadings in a case
where complainant was one of the parties. [5] Respondent, however, explained that she only
appeared because the property involved belonged to SBHI. Respondent alleged that complainant
misunderstood the role of respondent as legal counsel of Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. Respondent
manifested that her appearance as counsel for complainant Diana de Guzman was to protect the
rights and interest of SBHI since the latter was real owner of the land in controversy.
Respondent further said that the land on which the resort was established belonged to the
Japanese incorporators, not to complainant. The relationship of the complainant and the Japanese
investors turned sour because complainant misappropriated the funds and property of the
corporation. To save the corporation from bankruptcy, respondent advised all concerned
stockholders that it was proper to call for the payment of unpaid subscriptions and subsequent
sale of the delinquent shares. These lead to the auction of the unpaid shares of complainant and
hence, the ouster of complainant from the corporation.

Meantime, Mr. Del Rosario transferred one hundred (100) shares to respondent in payment of
legal services as evidenced by a Deed of Waiver and Transfer of corporate Shares of Stock.

On October 22, 1999, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution [6] finding that the
acts of respondent were not motivated by ill will as she acts in the best interest of her client,
SBHI. The IBP found that complainant failed to present convincing proof of her attorney-client
relationship with respondent other than the pleadings respondent filed in the trial court where
complainant was one of the parties.

We disagree.

We find merit in the complaint. There are certain facts presented before us that created doubt on
the propriety of the declaration of delinquent shares and subsequent sale of complainant's entire
subscription. Complainant subscribed to 29,800 shares equivalent to two million nine hundred
and eighty thousand pesos (P2,980,000.00). She was the majority stockholder. Out of the
subscribed shares, she paid up seven hundred forty-five thousand pesos (P745,000.00) during the
stage of incorporation.

How complainant got ousted from the corporation considering the amount she had invested in it
is beyond us. Granting that the sale of her delinquent shares was valid, what happened to her
original shares? This, at least, should have been explained.

Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client relationship between her and complainant.
The claim has no merit. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She
appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant.

There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the
board of directors nowe included respondent as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary,
Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director. [7] The
present situation shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent.

Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[8]
We said:

"To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such
statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, `of all classes and professions,
[lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law,' it is imperative that they live by the law.
Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the
legal profession."[9]
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. [10]

As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission

and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The
lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension,
disbarment,[11] or other disciplinary action.[12] The acts of respondent Atty. De Dios are clearly in
violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios remiss in her sworn duty
to her client, and to the bar. The Court hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six
(6) months, with warning that a repetition of the charges will be dealth with more severely.

Let a copy ofthis decision be entered in the personal records of respondent as an attorney and as
a member of the Bar, and furnish the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

 THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 8620 : January 12, 2011
JESSIE R. DE LEON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO, Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
This administrative case, which Jessie R. De Leon initiated on April 29, 2010, concerns
respondent attorney's alleged dishonesty and falsification committed in the pleadings he filed in
behalf of the defendants in the civil action in which De Leon intervened.
Antecedents
On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the purpose of correcting the transfer
certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land located in Malabon City then registered
in the names of defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a
public callejon and on a portion of the Malabon-Navotas River shoreline to the extent,
respectively, of an area of 45 square meters and of about 600 square meters. The suit,
entitled Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu,
Gorgonia Flores, and the Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City , was docketed as Civil Case No.
4674MN of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, in Malabon City.1cralawredlaw
De Leon, having joined Civil Case No. 4674MN as a voluntary intervenor two years later (April
21, 2008), now accuses the respondent, the counsel of record of the defendants in Civil Case No.
4674MN, with the serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification warranting his
disbarment or suspension as an attorney. The respondent's sin was allegedly committed by his
filing for defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of various pleadings (that is, answer
with counterclaim and cross-claim in relation to the main complaint; and answer to the
complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim) despite said spouses being already
deceased at the time of filing.2cralawredlaw
De Leon avers that the respondent committed dishonesty and falsification as
follows: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
xxx in causing it (to) appear that persons (spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu) have participated
in an act or proceeding (the making and filing of the Answers) when they did not in fact so
participate; in fact, they could not have so participated because they were already dead as of that
time, which is punishable under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 2, of the
Revised Penal Code.
Respondent also committed the crime of Use of Falsified Documents, by submitting the said
falsified Answers in the judicial proceedings, Civil Case No.
4674MN; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent also made a mockery of the aforesaid judicial proceedings by representing dead
persons therein who, he falsely made to appear, as contesting the complaints, counter-suing and
cross-suing the adverse parties.
12. That, as a consequence of the above criminal acts, complainant respectfully submits that
respondent likewise violated: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
(a) His Lawyer's Oath: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
xxx
(b) The Code of Professional Responsibility:3cralawredlaw
xxx
On June 23, 2010, the Court directed the respondent to comment on De Leon's administrative
complaint.4cralawredlaw
In due course, or on August 2, 2010,5cralaw the respondent rendered the following explanations
in his comment, to wit: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
1. The persons who had engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family in Civil Case No.
4674MN were William and Leonardo Lim, the children of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. Upon his (Atty. Castelo) initial queries relevant to the material allegations of the
Government's complaint in Civil Case No. 4674MN, William Lim, the representative of the Lim
Family, informed him: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
a. That the Lim family had acquired the properties from Georgina
Flores; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
b. That William and Leonardo Lim were already actively managing the family business, and now
co-owned the properties by virtue of the deed of absolute sale their parents, Spouses Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu, had executed in their favor; and
c. That because of the execution of the deed of absolute sale, William and Leonardo Lim had
since honestly assumed that their parents had already caused the transfer of the TCTs to their
names.
3. Considering that William and Leonardo Lim themselves were the ones who had engaged his
services, he (Atty. Castelo) consequently truthfully stated in the motion seeking an extension to
file responsive pleading dated February 3, 2006 the fact that it was "the family of the defendants"
that had engaged him, and that he had then advised "the children of the defendants" to seek the
assistance as well of a licensed geodetic surveyor and engineer; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
4. He (Atty. Castelo) prepared the initial pleadings based on his honest belief that Spouses Lim
Hio and Dolores Chu were then still living. Had he known that they were already deceased, he
would have most welcomed the information and would have moved to substitute Leonardo and
William Lim as defendants for that reason; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
5. He (Atty. Castelo) had no intention to commit either a falsehood or a falsification, for he in
fact submitted the death certificates of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in order to apprise the
trial court of that fact; and
6. The Office of the Prosecutor for Malabon City even dismissed the criminal complaint for
falsification brought against him (Atty. Castelo) through the resolution dated February 11, 2010.
The same office denied the complainant's motion for reconsideration on May 17, 2010.
On September 3, 2010, the complainant submitted a reply,6cralaw whereby he asserted that the
respondent's claim in his comment that he had represented the Lim family was a deception,
because the subject of the complaint against the respondent was his filing of the answers in
behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu despite their being already deceased at the time of
the filing. The complainant regarded as baseless the justifications of the Office of the City
Prosecutor for Malabon City in dismissing the criminal complaint against the respondent and in
denying his motion for reconsideration.
The Court usually first refers administrative complaints against members of the Philippine Bar to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and appropriate recommendations.
For the present case, however, we forego the prior referral of the complaint to the IBP, in view of
the facts being uncomplicated and based on the pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Thus, we
decide the complaint on its merits.
Ruling
We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any falsehood or falsification in his
pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently frivolous complaint.
I
Attorney's Obligation to tell the truth
All attorneys in the Philippines, including the respondent, have sworn to the vows embodied in
following Lawyer's Oath,7cralaw viz: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer's Oath, providing:8cralawredlaw
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule 10.01 - 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.
The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, as officers of the Court, to act with
the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. All attorneys are thereby
enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or
from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct themselves according to the best of
their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients.
Being also servants of the Law, attorneys are expected to observe and maintain the rule of law
and to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by others.9cralaw The least they can do
in that regard is to refrain from engaging in any form or manner of unlawful conduct (which
broadly includes any act or omission contrary to law, but does not necessarily imply the element
of criminality even if it is broad enough to include such element).10cralawredlaw
To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest value, for, as the Court has said
in Young v. Batuegas:11cralawredlaw
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will "do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to his clients." He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to
correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and
arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete
honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty
to defend his client's rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's
cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not only the presumption of regularity in
the discharge of their duties, but also the immunity from liability to others for as long as the
performance of their obligations to their clients does not depart from their character as servants
of the Law and as officers of the Court. In particular, the statements they make in behalf of their
clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely privileged
regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak of privilege is necessary and essential in
ensuring the unhindered service to their clients' causes and in protecting the clients' confidences.
With the cloak of privilege, they can freely and courageously speak for their clients, verbally or
in writing, in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, without running the risk of
incurring criminal prosecution or actions for damages.12cralawredlaw
Nonetheless, even if they enjoy a number of privileges by reason of their office and in
recognition of the vital role they play in the administration of justice, attorneys hold the privilege
and right to practice law before judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or offices only
during good behavior.13cralawredlaw
II
Respondent did not violate the Lawyer's Oath
and the  Code of Professional Responsibility
On April 17, 2006, the respondent filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim  in behalf
of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the persons whom the Government as plaintiff named as
defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN.14cralaw He alleged therein
that: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are ADMITTED. Moreover, it is hereby made
known that defendants spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had already sold the two (2) parcels of
land, together with the building and improvements thereon, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. (148805) 139876 issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal, to Leonardo C. Lim and
William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 - 502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila. Hence,
Leonardo Lim and William Lim are their successors-in-interest and are the present lawful
owners thereof.
In order to properly and fully protect their rights, ownership and interests, Leonardo C. Lim and
William C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu as
substitute/representative parties in this action. In this manner, a complete and expeditious
resolution of the issues raised in this case can be reached without undue delay. A photo copy of
the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property, executed by herein defendants-spouses Lim
Hio and Dolores Chu in favor of said Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, is hereto attached as
Annex "1" hereof.
xxx
21. There is improper joinder of parties in the complaint. Consequently, answering defendants
are thus unduly compelled to litigate in a suit regarding matters and facts as to which they have
no knowledge of nor any involvement or participation in.
22. Plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel in bringing this suit, as it was the one who, by
its governmental authority, issued the titles to the subject property.
This action is barred by the principles of prescription and laches for plaintiff's unreasonable
delay in brining this suit, particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein answering
defendants acquired the subject property in good faith and for value. If truly plaintiff has a clear
and valid cause of action on the subject property, it should not have waited thirty (30) years to
bring suit.
Two years later, or on April 21, 2008, De Leon filed his complaint in intervention in Civil Case
No. 4674MN.15cralaw He expressly named therein as defendants vis-à-vis his intervention not
only the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the original defendants, but also their sons Leonardo
Lim, married to Sally Khoo, and William Lim, married to Sally Lee, the same persons whom the
respondent had already alleged in the answer, supra, to be the transferees and current owners of
the parcels of land.16cralawredlaw
The following portions of De Leon's complaint in intervention in Civil Case No. 4674MN are
relevant, viz: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
2. Defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, are Filipino citizens with addresses at 504 Plaza
del Conde, Manila and at 46 C. Arellano St., San Agustin, Malabon City, where they may be
served with summons and other court processes ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3. Defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and
Sally Lee are all of legal age and with postal address at Rms. 501-502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del
Conde, Binondo, Manila, alleged purchasers of the property in question from defendant spouses
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
4. Defendants Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City holds office in Malabon City, where he may
be served with summons and other court processes. He is charged with the duty, among others,
of registering decrees of Land Registration in Malabon City under the Land Registration
Act; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
xxx
7. That intervenor Jessie de Leon, is the owner of a parcel of land located in Malabon City
described in TCT no. M-15183 of the Register of Deeds of Malabon City, photocopy of which is
attached to this Complaint as Annex "G", and copy of the location plan of the aforementioned
property is attached to this complaint as Annex "H" and is made an integral part
hereof; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
8. That there are now more or less at least 40 squatters on intervenor's property, most of them
employees of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim
and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee who had gained access to
intervenor's property and built their houses without benefit of any building permits from the
government who had made their access to intervenor's property thru a two panel metal gate more
or less 10 meters wide and with an armed guard by the gate and with permission from defendant
spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and/or and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo
and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee illegally entered intervenor's property thru a
wooden ladder to go over a 12 foot wall now separating intervenor's property from the former
esquinita which is now part of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu's and defendant
spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo's and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee's
property and this illegally allowed his employees as well as their relatives and friends thereof to
illegally enter intervenor's property through the ladders defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu installed in their wall and also allowed said employees and relatives as well as friends to
build houses and shacks without the benefit of any building permit as well as permit to occupy
said illegal buildings; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
9. That the enlargement of the properties of spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had resulted in
the closure of street lot no. 3 as described in TCT no. 143828, spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
having titled the street lot no. 3 and placed a wall at its opening on C. Arellano street, thus
closing any exit or egress or entrance to intervenor's property as could be seen from Annex "H"
hereof and thus preventing intervenor from entering into his property resulted in preventing
intervenor from fully enjoying all the beneficial benefits from his
property; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
10. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and later on defendant spouses Leonardo
Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are the only people who
could give permission to allow third parties to enter intervenor's property and their control over
intervenor's property is enforced through his armed guard thus exercising illegal beneficial rights
over intervenor's property at intervenor's loss and expense, thus depriving intervenor of
legitimate income from rents as well as legitimate access to intervenor's property and the worst is
preventing the Filipino people from enjoying the Malabon Navotas River and enjoying the right
of access to the natural fruits and products of the Malabon Navotas River and instead it is
defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally
Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee using the public property exclusively to
enrich their pockets ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
xxx
13. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and
Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee were confederating, working and
helping one another in their actions to inhibit intervenor Jessie de Leon to gain access and
beneficial benefit from his property ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On July 10, 2008, the respondent, representing all the defendants named in De Leon's complaint
in intervention, responded in an answer to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and
cross-claim,17cralaw stating that "spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu xxx are now both
deceased," to wit: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
xxx
2. The allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Complaint are ADMITTED, with the
qualification that defendants-spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo Lim, William Lim and Sally
Lee Lim are the registered and lawful owners of the subject property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. M-35929, issued by the Register of Deeds for Malabon City, having long
ago acquired the same from the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, who are now both
deceased . Copy of the TCT No. M-35929 is attached hereto as Annexes "1" and "1-A". The
same title has already been previously submitted to this Honorable Court on December 13, 2006.
xxx
The respondent subsequently submitted to the RTC a so-called clarification and
submission,18cralaw in which he again adverted to the deaths of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu, as follows: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
1. On March 19, 2009, herein movants-defendants Lim filed before this Honorable Court a
Motion for Substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint of the plaintiff Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the DENR; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. The Motion for Substitution is grounded on the fact that the two (2) parcels of land, with the
improvements thereon, which are the subject matter of the instant case, had long been sold and
transferred by the principal defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu to herein complaint-
in-intervention defendants Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, by way of a Deed of Absolute
Sale , a copy of which is attached to said Motion as Annex "1" thereof.
3. Quite plainly, the original principal defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, having sold and
conveyed the subject property, have totally lost any title, claim or legal interest on the property.
It is on this factual ground that this Motion for Substitution is based and certainly not on the
wrong position of Intervenor de Leon that the same is based on the death of defendants Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu .
4. Under the foregoing circumstances and facts, the demise of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu no longer has any significant relevance to the instant Motion . To, however, show the fact of
their death, photo copy of their respective death certificates are attached hereto as Annexes "1"
and "2" hereof.
5. The Motion for substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint dated March 18, 2009
shows in detail why there is the clear, legal and imperative need to now substitute herein
movants-defendants Lim for defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in the said principal
complaint.
6. Simply put, movants-defendants Lim have become the indispensable defendants in the
principal complaint of plaintiff DENR, being now the registered and lawful owners of the subject
property and the real parties-in-interest in this case. Without them, no final determination can be
had in the Principal complaint.
7. Significantly, the property of intervenor Jessie de Leon, which is the subject of his complaint-
in-intervention, is identically, if not similarly, situated as that of herein movants-defendants Lim,
and likewise, may as well be a proper subject of the Principal Complaint of plaintiff DENR.
8. Even the plaintiff DENR, itself, concedes the fact that herein movants-defendants Lim should
be substituted as defendants in the principal complaint as contained in their Manifestation dated
June 3, 2009, which has been filed in this case.
WHEREFORE, herein movants-defendants Lim most respectfully submit their Motion for
substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint and pray that the same be granted.
xxx
Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility  in making the averments in the aforequoted pleadings of the defendants?
A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer to the
complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and
submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that any of the respondent's pleadings might have
created any impression that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living, we still
cannot hold the respondent guilty of any dishonesty or falsification. For one, the respondent was
acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed the answer with
counterclaim and cross-claim on April 17, 2006. As such, his pleadings were privileged and
would not occasion any action against him as an attorney. Secondly, having made clear at the
start that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer the actual owners of the affected
properties due to the transfer of ownership even prior to the institution of the action, and that the
actual owners (i.e., Leonardo and William Lim) needed to be substituted in lieu of said spouses,
whether the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living or already deceased as of the
filing of the pleadings became immaterial. And, lastly, De Leon could not disclaim knowledge
that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the action as
a voluntary intervenor charged him with notice of all the other persons interested in the
litigation. He also had an actual awareness of such other persons, as his own complaint in
intervention, supra, bear out in its specific allegations against Leonardo Lim and William Lim,
and their respective spouses. Thus, he could not validly insist that the respondent committed any
dishonesty or falsification in relation to him or to any other party.
III
Good faith must always motivate any complaint
against a Member of the Bar
According to Justice Cardozo,19cralaw "xxx the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of
wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling is a
plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily
restored." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is,
must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do
so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and,
secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A
Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and
fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of
justice.
The complainant initiated his complaint possibly for the sake of harassing the respondent, either
to vex him for taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No. 4674MN, or to
get even for an imagined wrong in relation to the subject matter of the pending action, or to
accomplish some other dark purpose. The worthlessness of the accusation - apparent from the
beginning - has impelled us into resolving the complaint sooner than later.
WHEREFORE, we dismiss the complaint for disbarment or suspension filed against Atty.
Eduardo G. Castelo for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ.