Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

The duty of the Register of Deeds to register instruments presented for registration is purely ministerial, confined to determining whether the documents conform with formal and legal requirements on their face, and does not extend to passing upon the validity or invalidity of the instruments; absent clear and convincing evidence, neither conspiracy between opposing counsel nor abandonment by counsel whose engagement has terminated may be established.

Complainants Jessie T. Campugan and Robert C. Torres are the surviving children of the late Spouses Antonio and Nemesia Torres, from whom they inherited a residential lot at No. 251 Boni Serrano Street, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City, originally registered under TCT No. RT-64333(35652). They discovered that this title had been cancelled and replaced by TCT No. N-290546 under the names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort, prompting them to file a civil action for annulment of title and to annotate an affidavit of adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens on the new title. The respondents include the complainants' former counsel (Atty. Victorio, Jr.), the Ricaforts' counsel (Atty. Tolentino, Jr.), and officials of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City (Atty. Quilala, Atty. Cunanan, and Atty. Caluya, Jr.), all of whom were accused of participating in the unauthorized cancellation of those annotations.

Complainants Jessie T. Campugan and Robert C. Torres, as surviving children of the late Spouses Antonio and Nemesia Torres, inherited a residential lot located at No. 251 Boni Serrano Street, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City, registered under TCT No. RT-64333(35652) of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. On August 24, 2006, they discovered that this title had been unlawfully cancelled and replaced by TCT No. N-290546 under the names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort. They immediately caused the annotation of their affidavit of adverse claim on the new title.

In the first week of January 2007, the complainants, then represented by Atty. Edgardo Abad and later by Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., filed a civil action for annulment of TCT No. N-290546 in the RTC of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-07-59598, impleading the Ricaforts, Juliet Vargas, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City as defendants. They caused the annotation of both their affidavit of adverse claim and a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. N-290546. Atty. Federico S. Tolentino, Jr. appeared as counsel for defendants Ramon and Josefina Ricafort.

During the pendency of the civil case, the parties entered into an amicable settlement whereby the complainants agreed to sell the property, the proceeds would be equally divided between the parties, and the complaint and counterclaim would be mutually withdrawn. Pursuant to this settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint dated February 26, 2008, which the RTC granted in its order dated May 16, 2008, noting the defendants' lack of objection and their willingness to similarly withdraw their counterclaim.

From the time of the issuance of the RTC order dated May 16, 2008, the complainants could no longer locate or contact Atty. Victorio, Jr. despite repeated phone calls and visits to his office. Upon verification at the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, they discovered that new annotations had been made on TCT No. N-290546: first, the annotation of a letter-request apparently filed by Atty. Tolentino, Jr. seeking cancellation of the adverse claim and lis pendens; and second, the annotation of the RTC order dated May 16, 2008 granting the Motion to Withdraw Complaint. A copy of the letter-request dated June 30, 2008, addressed to Atty. Elbert T. Quilala as Registrar of Deeds, disclosed that it was defendant Ramon Ricafort who had signed the letter, with Atty. Tolentino, Jr. having notarized it.

The complainants filed an appeal en consulta with the Land Registration Authority, docketed as Consulta No. 4707, assailing the cancellation of their annotations under primary entries PE-2742 and PE-3828-9. The LRA set the consulta for hearing on March 30, 2009, but the records do not disclose whether it was resolved or remained pending. Feeling aggrieved, the complainants filed disbarment complaints alleging that the cancellation of their annotations without a court order specifically allowing it resulted from connivance between Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr., and from the abuse of official positions by Atty. Quilala (Chief Registrar), Atty. Cunanan (acting Registrar and signatory of the new annotations), and later Atty. Caluya, Jr. (who, according to Atty. Quilala's Comment, was the actual signing authority whose signature appeared below the cancelled entries).

• Conspiracy: The complainants alleged that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. conspired with each other to guarantee that the parties in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 would enter into the amicable settlement, and then to cause the cancellation of the affidavit of adverse claim and notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. N-290546.
• Abandonment: The complainants charged Atty. Victorio, Jr. with having abandoned their cause since the issuance of the RTC order dated May 16, 2008, citing their inability to locate or contact him despite repeated calls and visits, and despite having paid him for his professional services.
• Abuse of Authority by Registry Officials: The complainants claimed that Atty. Quilala, Atty. Cunanan, and Atty. Caluya, Jr. took advantage of their positions as officials in the Registry of Deeds to cause the cancellation of the annotations without a court order specifically allowing such cancellation, thereby prejudicing the complainants.
• Forgery: In the second complaint, the complainants alleged that Atty. Caluya, Jr. had forged the signature of Atty. Cunanan on the cancelled entries.

• Active Participation (Atty. Victorio, Jr.): Atty. Victorio, Jr. asserted that complainant Robert Torres had been actively involved in the proceedings, including the mediation process, and that the complainants could not now claim deception after aggressively participating in drafting the amicable settlement.
• No Abandonment (Atty. Victorio, Jr.): Atty. Victorio, Jr. maintained that he performed his duties in good faith, that he should not be held responsible for representation in other proceedings such as the LRA consulta which required a separate engagement, and that the only payment he received were appearance fees of ₱1,000.00 per hearing.
• No Conspiracy (Atty. Tolentino, Jr.): Atty. Tolentino, Jr. refuted the conspiracy charge, stressing that he was not acquainted with the other respondents except Atty. Victorio, Jr. whom he had met during hearings; that although he had notarized the letter-request of Ramon Ricafort, he had no knowledge of how it was disposed of by the Register of Deeds; and that the complaint was a harassment suit.
• Ministerial Duty (Atty. Quilala): Atty. Quilala stated that it was Atty. Caluya, Jr. who was the actual signing authority of the annotations; that the cancellation was undertaken in the regular course of official duty as a ministerial function; that no irregularity occurred; and that the Register of Deeds was impleaded only as a nominal party in the civil case.
• Adoption (Atty. Caluya, Jr.): Atty. Caluya, Jr. adopted Atty. Quilala's Comment in both cases.
• No Comment (Atty. Cunanan): Atty. Cunanan did not file any comment.

• Conspiracy: Whether Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. conspired to cause the dismissal of the complaint and the cancellation of the adverse claim and lis pendens annotations.
• Abandonment: Whether Atty. Victorio, Jr. abandoned the complainants' cause after the issuance of the RTC order dated May 16, 2008.
• Abuse of Authority: Whether Atty. Quilala, Atty. Cunanan, and Atty. Caluya, Jr. committed abuse of authority or irregularity in cancelling the adverse claim and lis pendens annotations on TCT No. N-290546.

• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was not established, the complainants having presented no evidence beyond bare assertions, while the records showed their own active participation in arriving at the amicable settlement.
• Abandonment: No. Atty. Victorio, Jr. was not liable for abandonment, his professional engagement having terminated upon the settlement of Civil Case No. Q-07-59598, and no credible showing that he remained under a professional obligation toward the complainants thereafter.
• Abuse of Authority: No. No abuse of authority or irregularity was committed, the duty of the Register of Deeds to register instruments being purely ministerial and limited to examining whether the documents conform with formal and legal requirements on their face.

• Conspiracy: While conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances attending the commission of an act and does not require proof of a formal agreement, it must nonetheless be established by clear and convincing evidence. The complainants failed in this regard, presenting nothing beyond bare assertions that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. conspired. On the contrary, the records indicated the complainants' own active participation in arriving at the amicable settlement. Even assuming the two lawyers initiated and participated in the settlement, there was nothing wrongful in doing so, as Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly obliges lawyers to encourage clients to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. The presumption of validity of the amicable settlement thus subsisted.

• Abandonment: The complainants engaged Atty. Victorio, Jr. as counsel in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598, and he served as such, assisting them in obtaining a fair settlement consisting of receiving half the proceeds of the sale of the property, without any portion accruing to counsel as legal fees. The complainants did not persuasively show any unfaithfulness on his part as far as their interest in the litigation was concerned. His alleged failure to respond to calls or visits after the termination of the civil case did not equate to abandonment, because the rendition of professional services depends on the agreement between attorney and client, and the profession does not burden its members with indefinite service. Unless expressly stipulated, the complainants had no right to assume that his representation extended to proceedings before the LRA.

• Abuse of Authority: Under Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Register of Deeds has the duty to immediately register any instrument presented for registration that complies with all requisites. This duty is ministerial in nature, meaning it is performed in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of the officer's own judgment upon the propriety of the act. Whether a document is invalid, frivolous, or intended to harass is not for the Register of Deeds to decide but for a court of competent jurisdiction. Whether or not the RTC order or the letter-request had been falsified, fraudulent, or invalid was not for the Register of Deeds officials to determine, their duty being limited to what appears on the face of the documents. If they found the documents sufficient in law and in conformity with existing requirements, it became obligatory to perform their ministerial duty without unnecessary delay. The complainants' remedy, if aggrieved, was to bring the matter by way of consulta with the LRA under Section 117 of PD 1529.

• Ministerial Duty of the Register of Deeds — The duty of the Register of Deeds to register instruments presented for registration is purely ministerial. A purely ministerial act is one that an officer performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor the exercise of judgment. The Register of Deeds need not pass upon the validity or invalidity of a document; that is ultimately within the province of a court of competent jurisdiction. Applied in this case, the Court found no abuse of authority by the Registry of Deeds officials, whose examination was limited to the face of the documents.

• Conspiracy in Administrative Proceedings — Conspiracy need not be proved by a formal agreement and may be inferred from circumstances, but it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Bare assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient, especially where the records themselves contradict the allegation by showing the complainants' own active participation in the challenged transaction.

• Lawyer's Duty to Encourage Settlement — Under Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall encourage clients to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. Counsel who initiate or participate in a fair settlement are fulfilling a professional obligation, not committing misconduct.

• Scope of Attorney-Client Engagement and Abandonment — The rendition of professional services depends on the agreement between attorney and client; the profession does not burden its members with indefinite service. A lawyer cannot be faulted for inattention to matters subsequent to the termination of the engagement unless there is a credible showing that a continued professional obligation existed. Abandonment under Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a showing of unfaithfulness or neglect of a legal matter still entrusted to counsel.

• "A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done." — This passage defines the canonical formulation of a ministerial duty, distinguishing it from a discretionary duty, and serves as the ratio decidendi for exonerating the Register of Deeds officials.

• "[W]hether the document is invalid, frivolous or intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register of Deeds to decide, but a court of competent jurisdiction, and that it is his concern to see whether the documents sought to be registered conform with the formal and legal requirements for such documents." — Quoted from Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, this passage delineates the boundary of the Register of Deeds' authority and is the controlling principle applied to absolve the respondent Registry officials.

• "The Law Profession did not burden its members with the responsibility of indefinite service to the clients; hence, the rendition of professional services depends on the agreement between the attorney and the client." — This statement articulates the principle limiting a lawyer's obligation to the scope of the engagement, forming the basis for the ruling that no abandonment occurred after the civil case was settled.

• Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, G.R. No. L-17956, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 136 — Controlling precedent on the ministerial nature of registration. The Court underscored that it is not the duty of the Register of Deeds to decide whether a document is invalid, frivolous, or intended to harass, but only to see whether it conforms with formal and legal requirements. Relied upon twice in the decision to support the exoneration of the Registry officials.

• People vs. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 64 — Cited for the proposition that conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence, even though a formal agreement is not necessary.

• Bautista vs. Seraph Management Group, Inc., G.R. No. 174039, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 141 — Cited for the principle that the presumption of validity of an amicable settlement subsists.

• Register of Deeds, Pasig, Rizal vs. Heirs of Hi Caiji, 99 Phil 25 (1956) and Ledesma vs. Villaseñor, G.R. No. L-18725, March 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 494 — Cited to support the ministerial nature of the Register of Deeds' duty to register.

• Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Enumerates the general functions of the Register of Deeds, including the duty to immediately register an instrument presented for registration that complies with all requisites, and to deny registration if the instrument is not registrable. Applied to establish that the respondent Registry officials acted within their ministerial duty.

• Section 117, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Provides the procedure for consulta, whereby a party in interest who disagrees with the action taken by the Register of Deeds may submit the question to the Commissioner of Land Registration. Applied to show that the complainants had an available remedy to challenge the cancellation of their annotations.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Enumerates the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the attorney's oath, and willful disobedience. Cited as the procedural basis for disciplinary sanctions, which the complainants' allegations failed to trigger.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Cited as a standard the respondents were found not to have violated.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to encourage clients to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. Applied to justify the conduct of Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. in facilitating the amicable settlement.

• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. Cited as a general standard.

• Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Require a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and to keep the client informed of the status of the case. Applied to evaluate and reject the abandonment charge against Atty. Victorio, Jr.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.