Fernandez vs. Grecia

A lawyer who steals pages from a medical chart constituting material evidence, in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, commits grave misconduct and dishonesty warranting disbarment, especially as a second offense after prior reinstatement.

Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, and Achilles Bartolome were accredited medical practitioners at St. Luke's Medical Center. Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia was counsel for the adverse parties who sued them for damages arising from a patient's death. The governing framework was the lawyer's continuing duty to maintain good moral character, honesty, and integrity as an officer of the court.

The late Fe Linda Aves was seven months pregnant when admitted as a patient at St. Luke's Hospital on December 20, 1990, complaining of dizziness, hypertension, and abdominal pains with vaginal bleeding. Dr. Fernandez, head of the OB-GYNE Department, Dr. Ongtengco, Jr., a cardiologist, and Dr. Bartolome, a urologist, examined her and diagnosed mild pre-eclampsia. Five days later, on Christmas Day, December 25, 1990, she was discharged to celebrate Christmas with her family, but was rushed back the next day, December 26, 1990, and on December 27, 1990, she died together with her unborn child.

Blaming the hospital and attending physicians, her husband Attorney Damaso B. Aves, with his three minor children, filed an action for damages against St. Luke's Medical Center and the three doctors. Their counsel, respondent Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia, filed the complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 3548-V and assigned to Branch 172 presided over by Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong. On July 4, 1991, at Grecia's request, the medical records of Fe Linda Aves were produced in court by St. Luke's and entrusted to Acting Branch Clerk of Court Avelina Robles.

On July 16, 1991, between 8:30 and 9:00 in the morning, upon arriving for another hearing, Grecia borrowed from Robles the folder containing the records. According to Robles and clerk Maria Arnet Sandico, while leafing through the folder Grecia surreptitiously tore off two pages, crumpled them, placed them inside the right pocket of his coat, immediately returned the folder, and left the office. Robles examined the chart and found pages 72 and 73 missing. She ordered Sandico to follow respondent. Near the canteen at the end of the building, Sandico saw Grecia call a man leaning against a parked car, take the crumpled papers from his coat pocket, and hand them to the man.

Sandico reported what she saw to Robles, who reported it to Judge Capulong. The three went downstairs, where Sandico pointed out the man. At the judge's direction the man was brought to her chambers. In the presence of Attorneys Aves and Melanie Limson for St. Luke's, Robles, Sandico, and a visitor, Judge Capulong confronted the man and ordered him to surrender the papers. After initial denial, and upon Sandico's declaration that she saw Grecia hand them over, the man took them from his pants pocket and gave them to the judge. When shown the crumpled pages 72 and 73, Sandico identified them as the same papers Grecia had handed to the man. In the aftermath, Robles collapsed and was rushed to Fatima Hospital where she regained consciousness, and no one ascertained the man's identity. Judge Capulong later directed the Valenzuela Police to identify him and ordered Sandico to submit a formal report. Police investigator PO3 Arnold Alabastro traced information that Grecia's driver was known only as SID, learned from a housemaid that SID had been sent to his province, was denied by Grecia that he had a driver named SID, but obtained confirmation from a neighbor across the street that SID was Grecia's driver.

At the investigation before Judge Bernad, Attorney Aves testified that it was St. Luke's counsel Attorney Bu Castro, not Grecia, who lifted two pages from the folder lying on Robles' table and later handed a piece of paper to a man in the parking lot. Grecia denied any knowledge of the theft, alleged the possessor of the detached pages was planted by adversaries to discredit him, denied having a driver, claimed his car was out of order so he was fetched in Aves' Maxima car, claimed arrival at exactly 9:15 in the morning and wearing a dark blue barong tagalog without pockets, branded Sandico's and Alabastro's testimonies as falsehood and fabrication, and argued he would not remove pages favorable to his client's cause. Judge Bernad found Robles and Sandico entirely credible, without guile or fabrication and constant even under cross-examination, found they had no motive to testify falsely, disregarded Aves' testimony as biased and contradicted, and found Grecia's testimony wanting in truth and candor.

• Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Complainants charged that respondent committed dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of pages from a medical chart which was material evidence in the damage suit filed by his clients against the doctors and St. Luke's.

• Denial and Frame-Up: Respondent denied any knowledge of the theft and alleged that the person caught in possession of the detached pages was actually planted by his adversaries to discredit him and destroy his reputation.
• Alibi, Attire, and No Driver: Respondent maintained that he had no driver, that his car was out of order on July 16, 1991 so he was fetched by Attorney Aves' driver in a Maxima car, that he arrived at exactly 9:15 in the morning and went straight to the second-floor courtroom until his case was called at 9:40, and that he wore a dark blue barong tagalog with no pockets on a very warm day.
• Lack of Motive and Procedural Irregularity: Respondent argued that he would not have removed the chart pages because the medical chart was the very foundation of his civil case, questioned why the unidentified man was neither held nor arrested nor identified, and branded the testimonies of Sandico and Police Investigator Alabastro as falsehood and fabrication.

• Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Whether respondent committed dishonesty and grave misconduct by stealing two pages from the medical chart in evidence and passing them to his driver.
• Penalty for Second Offense: Whether disbarment, rather than a lesser sanction, is warranted considering this is respondent's second offense after prior disbarment and reinstatement.

• Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Yes. The theft was established by credible eyewitness testimony and recovery of pages 72 and 73, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty for Second Offense: Yes. Disbarment was imposed, respondent having demonstrated incorrigibility and moral unfitness only eight months after reinstatement from a prior disbarment.

• Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: The charge was deemed true on the basis of evidence before the investigator. Robles and Sandico were found entirely credible, constant under cross-examination, with no motive to testify falsely; their hesitation to immediately confront a man of respondent's stature was understandable, and their prompt report to the judge led to recovery of the exhibits. The swift confrontation in chambers established that the crumpled pages handed by respondent to the man were pages 72 and 73, as identified by Sandico. By contrast, Aves' claim that St. Luke's counsel stole the pages was directly contradicted, unmentioned during the chamber confrontation where Aves was present, and properly disregarded for obvious bias, while respondent's testimony lacked truth and candor, shown by selective precision on arrival time and attire but faulty memory on recent hearing dates and by a specious claim that the entries were favorable when they in fact showed stabilized blood pressure of 120/80 after readmission. Descending to the level of a common thief demeaned the profession and proved moral unfitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
• Penalty for Second Offense: The supreme penalty was reimposed because this was the second offense against the canons. Respondent had been disbarred on November 12, 1987 for immoral complicity with a judge, reinstated on December 18, 1990 upon pleas for compassion and promise to mend his ways, yet faced the new dishonesty charge only eight months later on August 20, 1991. The earlier discipline not having reformed him, his conduct marked him as an incorrigible practitioner of dirty tricks, ill-suited to serve as an instrument to advance the ends of justice, warranting cancellation of his license and striking of his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

• Nature and Purpose of Disciplinary Proceedings — Disciplinary proceedings are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; public interest is the primary objective and the real question is whether the attorney remains fit to be allowed the privileges of the profession. Applied to protect the court and the public from misconduct and to remove one whose misconduct proves unfitness to be entrusted with the duties of an attorney.
• Lawyer as Officer of the Court and Instrument of Justice — A lawyer is an officer of the courts, like the court itself an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. Applied to condemn respondent as an incorrigible practitioner of dirty tricks ill-suited to discharge that role after stealing evidence.
• Continued Good Moral Character Requirement — Admission requires good moral character, and its continued possession is essential for remaining in practice; gross misconduct, even if unrelated to professional duties, which puts moral character in serious doubt renders a lawyer unfit to continue. Applied to find respondent morally unfit after descending to common theft of exhibits.
• High Standard of Honesty and Grounds for Disbarment — The Bar must maintain high legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing, with nothing done to lessen public confidence in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession; a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, professional or private, showing want of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor or tending to bring reproach on the profession. Applied to impose disbarment for dishonest, unlawful, and deceitful conduct in handling evidence.

• "Public interests is the primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such." — States the controlling test for disciplinary proceedings, drawn from In Re Almacen, and frames the fitness inquiry applied to respondent.
• "A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is 'like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice' (People ex rel Karlin vs. Culkin, 60 A.L.R. 851, 855)." — Defines the lawyer's institutional role and why resort to dirty tricks warrants removal from the profession.
• "The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing." — Articulates the ethical standard underpinning the finding that theft of evidence demeans and disgraces the profession.
• "Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court" — States the broad ground for disbarment applied to respondent's dishonesty as a second offense.

• In Re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562, 600 — Followed as authority that disciplinary proceedings are sui generis and that public interest and continuing fitness govern the determination.
• In Re Montagne and Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577, 588 — Followed for the purpose of discipline as protection of the court and public from misconduct of officers of the court.
• Ledesma vs. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473; Atienza vs. Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338 — Cited for the proposition that removal is proper where misconduct proves unfitness to be entrusted with attorney duties.
• Prudential Bank vs. Judge Jose P. Castro and Atty. Benjamin M. Grecia [Adm. Case No. 2756], 155 SCRA 604 — Cited as respondent's prior disbarment for immoral complicity with a judge, establishing the present case as a second offense and incorrigibility.
• Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992 — Followed for the Bar's high standard of honesty and fair dealing and for the general rule on disbarment for misconduct showing want of moral character.
• Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662, 676 — Followed for the rule that continued possession of good moral character is essential and gross misconduct putting it in doubt renders a lawyer unfit.
• Phil. Association of Free Labor Unions [PAFLU] vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company, 42 SCRA 302, 305 — Cited for public policy that legal representation be entrusted only to those with tested qualifications subject to judicial disciplinary control.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rules of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. Applied to find respondent's stealing of two pages from the medical chart a direct violation.
• Canon 7, Rules of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Applied together with Rule 1.01 to condemn conduct that demeaned and disgraced the profession.

Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur. Narvasa, C.J., took no part. Padilla, J., is on leave.