De Leon vs. Castelo

An attorney does not commit dishonesty or falsification by filing pleadings on behalf of a deceased client when the attorney was unaware of the death at the time of filing, acted in the interest of the actual owners, and subsequently disclosed the death and sought substitution of parties.

Jessie R. De Leon intervened in a civil action filed by the Government to correct transfer certificates of title covering parcels of land registered in the names of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu. Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo was the counsel of record for the defendants in that civil action. De Leon initiated an administrative case accusing Castelo of dishonesty and falsification for filing pleadings on behalf of the spouses despite their being already deceased.

On January 2, 2006, the Government filed a suit to correct transfer certificates of title covering two parcels of land in Malabon City registered in the names of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, docketed as Civil Case No. 4674MN. Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants, having been engaged by the spouses' sons, William and Leonardo Lim, who claimed to have acquired the properties from their parents and were managing the family business. Unaware that the spouses were already deceased, Castelo filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim on April 17, 2006, wherein he alleged that the spouses had already sold the properties to William and Leonardo, and proposed that the sons be substituted as representative parties.

Two years later, on April 21, 2008, Jessie R. De Leon joined Civil Case No. 4674MN as a voluntary intervenor, naming both the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and their sons Leonardo and William as defendants in his complaint in intervention. On July 10, 2008, Castelo filed an answer to the complaint in intervention, explicitly stating that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu "are now both deceased." Subsequently, Castelo submitted a clarification and motion for substitution, attaching the death certificates of the deceased spouses and reiterating that the transfer of ownership to the sons was the primary ground for substitution, rendering the spouses' deaths immaterial to the motion.

On April 29, 2010, De Leon initiated an administrative complaint against Castelo, accusing him of dishonesty and falsification for making it appear that the deceased spouses participated in the proceedings by filing pleadings on their behalf. Castelo explained that he had prepared the initial pleadings based on his honest belief that the spouses were still living, relying on the information given by their sons who engaged his services. He also pointed out that he had submitted the death certificates to apprise the court of their deaths and that the Office of the City Prosecutor for Malabon City had already dismissed a related criminal complaint for falsification against him. De Leon filed a reply asserting that Castelo's claim of representing the Lim family was a deception. The Supreme Court forewent referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and decided the complaint on its merits based on the pleadings.

• Dishonesty and Falsification: Complainant averred that the respondent committed dishonesty and falsification by causing it to appear that the deceased spouses participated in the proceedings when they could not have, violating the Revised Penal Code.
• Mockery of Judicial Proceedings: Complainant alleged that the respondent made a mockery of the judicial proceedings by representing dead persons and falsely making it appear that they were contesting the complaints and counter-suing adverse parties.
• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Complainant asserted that the respondent's acts violated his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Deception in Comment: Complainant argued in his reply that the respondent's claim that he represented the Lim family was a deception, maintaining that the core issue was filing answers for deceased spouses.

• Good Faith and Lack of Knowledge: Respondent explained that he was engaged by the children of the deceased spouses, who informed him they had acquired the properties and were managing the family business, leading him to honestly believe the parents were still living.
• Disclosure of Death: Respondent maintained that he had no intention to commit a falsehood, pointing out that he submitted the death certificates of the spouses to apprise the trial court of their deaths.
• Prior Dismissal of Criminal Complaint: Respondent noted that the Office of the City Prosecutor for Malabon City had already dismissed the criminal complaint for falsification against him.

• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: Whether the respondent violated the letter and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in making averments in the pleadings filed on behalf of the deceased spouses.
• Good Faith in Bar Complaints: Whether good faith is required in initiating administrative complaints against members of the Bar.

• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: No. A plain reading of the pleadings indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that the spouses were still living; he directly stated in later pleadings that they were already deceased.
• Good Faith in Bar Complaints: Yes. Good faith must always motivate any complaint against a member of the Bar to shield lawyers from frivolous and harassing accusations.

• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and CPR: The respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed the initial answer, making his pleadings privileged. Furthermore, having made clear at the start that the spouses were no longer the actual owners due to a prior transfer and that substitution was necessary, whether the spouses were living or deceased became immaterial. Finally, the intervenor could not disclaim knowledge of the spouses' deaths, as his own complaint in intervention specifically named their sons, charging him with notice of all persons interested in the litigation.
• Good Faith in Bar Complaints: A lawyer's reputation is fragile and must be shielded from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and malicious. The Court must quickly cut down patently frivolous complaints and demand good faith from accusers to ensure a Bar insulated from intimidation and harassment, which contributes to the proper administration of justice. The complaint appeared worthless and possibly initiated for harassment.

• Privilege of Pleadings — Statements made by an attorney in behalf of their clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. The Court applied this by holding that the respondent's pleadings were privileged because he was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties.
• Good Faith Requirement for Bar Complaints — Good faith must always motivate any complaint against a member of the Bar. The Court applied this by dismissing the complaint for being patently frivolous and possibly initiated to harass the respondent, emphasizing that a lawyer's reputation is a fragile object that must be shielded from mindless assault.

• "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.'" — This passage underscores the high standard of truthfulness and honesty expected of attorneys as officers of the court, central to the resolution of whether the respondent violated his Lawyer's Oath.
• "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." — Quoting Justice Cardozo, this passage articulates the rationale for requiring good faith in administrative complaints against lawyers and shielding them from frivolous accusations.

• Young vs. Batuegas, A.C. No. 5379, May 9, 2003, 403 SCRA 123 — Cited to emphasize that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth and that while defending a client's rights, conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
• People of the State of New York ex rel. Alexander Karlin vs. Charles W. Culkin, as Sheriff of the County of New York, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487, 60 A.L.R. 851 — Cited for Justice Cardozo's quote on the fragility of a lawyer's reputation, supporting the doctrine that good faith must motivate complaints against members of the Bar.

• Lawyer's Oath, Rules of Court — The Court examined the provisions of the Lawyer's Oath requiring attorneys to do no falsehood and conduct themselves with good fidelity to courts and clients, concluding the respondent did not violate it.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 — These provisions prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and from doing any falsehood in court. The Court found no violation thereof by the respondent.

Carpio Morales (Chairperson), Brion, Villarama, Jr., and Sereno, JJ., concurred.