Vazquez vs. Kho

A disbarment case is not the proper venue to attack a person's citizenship; an attack on citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity, and absent a prior ruling by a competent court on citizenship, a disbarment complaint predicated on an allegedly false claim of natural-born citizenship must be dismissed.

Plutarco E. Vazquez and Atty. David Lim Queco Kho were both members of the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines (Coalition), an accredited party-list group that participated in the national elections of 10 May 2010. Atty. Kho's Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination for the Coalition contained a statement under oath that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen. The legal backdrop includes the 1935 Constitution's citizenship rules, the lawyer's oath that a lawyer "will do no falsehood," and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Plutarco E. Vazquez and Atty. David Lim Queco Kho were both members of the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines (Coalition), an accredited party-list group that participated in the national elections of 10 May 2010. Atty. Kho's Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination for the Coalition contained a statement under oath that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen. On 11 July 2012, Vazquez filed a verified Complaint with the Supreme Court alleging that Atty. Kho violated the lawyer's oath that he "will do no falsehood" and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Vazquez asserted that Atty. Kho was a Chinese national. He reasoned that when Atty. Kho was born on 29 April 1947 to a Chinese father, William Kho, and a Filipina mother, Juana Lim Queco, respondent's citizenship followed that of his Chinese father pursuant to the 1935 Constitution. Vazquez also argued that since Atty. Kho elected Filipino citizenship, the act presupposed that the person electing was either an alien, of doubtful status, or a national of two countries.

Atty. Kho filed his Comment on 27 February 2013. He countered that when he was born on 29 April 1947, his Filipina mother was not yet married to his Chinese father, and that his parents only got married on 8 February 1977, or some 30 years after his birth. According to the 1935 Constitution, his citizenship followed that of his Filipina mother, and thus he was a natural-born Filipino citizen. On the matter of his electing Filipino citizenship, he explained that since he was already a natural-born Filipino, his subsequent election of Philippine citizenship on 25 February 1970 was superfluous and had no effect on his citizenship. He concluded that he had not committed any falsehood in his Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination, and that complainant had no cause of action to have him disbarred. He also moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of forum shopping, claiming that Vazquez had filed three cases raising the issue of respondent's citizenship: the present disbarment case, a quo warranto proceeding with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), and a criminal complaint for perjury lodged with the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. He alleged that both the quo warranto and the perjury cases had already been dismissed by the HRET and the City Prosecutor, respectively. Finally, he raised jurisdictional questions, arguing that the proper remedy to attack his citizenship was not a disbarment case, but rather quo warranto.

In his Reply to Comment filed on 11 March 2013, Vazquez claimed that at the time of election of Philippine citizenship by respondent on 25 February 1970, the latter's mother was already a Chinese national by virtue of her marriage to respondent's father who was Chinese. Complainant also opposed respondent's assertion that the latter's parents were not yet married when he was born on 29 April 1947. Complainant further cited respondent's Certificate of Live Birth, which stated that the latter's parents were married at the time he was born. That being so, complainant averred that at the time Atty. Kho was born, his mother was already a Chinese national. Thus, complainant concluded that respondent's election of Filipino citizenship was fatally defective, since the latter's parents were both Chinese at the time of his election. Furthermore, complainant alleged that the marriage of respondent's parents on 8 February 1977 was just a ploy to put a semblance of legitimacy to his prior election of Filipino citizenship. Lastly, complainant denied the forum shopping charge, saying the three cases he had filed against respondent had different causes of action and were based on different grounds.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Commissioner Victor Pablo C. Trinidad found Atty. Kho "innocent of the charges" and recommended dismissal for utter lack of merit. He found no merit to the allegation that respondent had committed dishonesty and deceitfulness when he indicated in his verified Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination that he was a natural-born citizen. He said that respondent Atty. Kho, as a natural-born Filipino citizen, fell under the category of someone who was born of a Filipino mother before 17 January 1973, and who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. On jurisdiction, the IBP-CBD said that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, since the issue was whether respondent violated his lawyer's oath and the relevant provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although it acknowledged that citizenship cannot be attacked collaterally, it ruled that it had to make a finding thereon, since the alleged dishonesty hinged on that very matter; it clarified that its ruling was limited and "cannot strip or sustain the respondent of his citizenship." The IBP-CBD also found Vazquez guilty of forum shopping since in all three cases he had filed, he was questioning whether or not respondent was a natural-born citizen, and the actions involved the same transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances, as well as identical subject matter and issues. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation. No ruling from a competent court on Atty. Kho's citizenship was presented; the HRET and the City Prosecutor had dismissed the quo warranto and perjury cases, respectively.

• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01: Vazquez alleged that Atty. Kho violated the lawyer's oath that he "will do no falsehood" and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he declared in his verified Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen.
• Citizenship Under the 1935 Constitution: Vazquez asserted that Atty. Kho was a Chinese national because he was born on 29 April 1947 to a Chinese father, William Kho, and a Filipina mother, Juana Lim Queco; under the 1935 Constitution, respondent's citizenship followed that of his Chinese father.
• Election of Filipino Citizenship: Vazquez argued that Atty. Kho's election of Filipino citizenship presupposed that he was either an alien, of doubtful status, or a national of two countries. In his Reply, Vazquez claimed that at the time of respondent's election on 25 February 1970, respondent's mother was already a Chinese national by marriage; that respondent's Certificate of Live Birth stated his parents were married at his birth; that respondent's election was therefore fatally defective because both parents were Chinese at the time of election; and that the parents' 8 February 1977 marriage was a ploy to legitimize the prior election.
• Forum Shopping (Denial): Vazquez denied the forum shopping charge, saying the three cases he had filed against respondent had different causes of action and were based on different grounds.

• Natural-Born Citizenship: Atty. Kho countered that when he was born on 29 April 1947, his Filipina mother was not yet married to his Chinese father; his parents married only on 8 February 1977, or some 30 years after his birth; under the 1935 Constitution, his citizenship followed that of his Filipina mother, making him a natural-born Filipino citizen.
• Election of Citizenship Was Superfluous: Atty. Kho averred that since he was already a natural-born Filipino, his subsequent election of Philippine citizenship on 25 February 1970 was superfluous and had no effect on his citizenship.
• No Falsehood / No Cause of Action: Having established his natural-born status, Atty. Kho concluded that he had not committed any falsehood in his Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination, and that complainant had no cause of action to have him disbarred.
• Forum Shopping: Atty. Kho moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of forum shopping, claiming that Vazquez had filed three cases raising the issue of respondent's citizenship: the present disbarment case, a quo warranto proceeding with the HRET, and a criminal complaint for perjury with the City Prosecutor of Quezon City; both the quo warranto and perjury cases had already been dismissed.
• Jurisdiction / Proper Remedy: Atty. Kho argued that the proper remedy to attack his citizenship was not a disbarment case, but rather quo warranto.

• Collateral Attack on Citizenship / Proper Venue: Whether a disbarment case is the proper venue to attack or determine a respondent's citizenship, and whether the disbarment complaint can proceed absent a prior ruling by a competent court on citizenship.
• Falsehood / Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01: Whether Atty. Kho violated the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by stating in his verified Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen.
• Forum Shopping: Whether complainant engaged in forum shopping by filing the disbarment case, a quo warranto proceeding, and a perjury complaint, all questioning respondent's citizenship.
• Limited Finding by the IBP-CBD: Whether the IBP-CBD could make a limited finding on citizenship despite the rule that citizenship cannot be collaterally attacked.

• Collateral Attack on Citizenship / Proper Venue: No. A disbarment case is not the proper venue to attack citizenship; an attack on citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity. Absent a ruling from a competent court on respondent's citizenship, the disbarment complaint must be dismissed.
• Falsehood / Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01: No. The alleged falsehood depended on the question of citizenship, which could not be collaterally attacked and had not been ruled upon by a competent court; the disbarment case thus lost its only leg to stand on and was dismissed for lack of merit.
• Forum Shopping: Yes, as found by the IBP-CBD, whose Report and Recommendation the Court adopted and approved. The three cases involved the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, and identical subject matter and issues.
• Limited Finding by the IBP-CBD: Yes, but only a limited finding. The IBP-CBD could make a finding on citizenship because the alleged dishonesty hinged on it, but its ruling could not strip or sustain respondent of his citizenship.

• Collateral Attack on Citizenship / Proper Venue: The Court applied the settled rule that an attack on a person's citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity. A disbarment case is definitely not the proper venue to attack someone's citizenship. Because no competent court had issued a ruling on Atty. Kho's citizenship, the disbarment complaint predicated on the alleged falsehood lost its only leg to stand on and had to be dismissed. The Court did not resolve whether Atty. Kho was natural-born.
• Falsehood / Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01: The charge was that Atty. Kho violated his oath to do no falsehood and Rule 1.01 by declaring in his verified Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen. The alleged dishonesty hinged on the question of citizenship. Since citizenship cannot be collaterally attacked and no competent court had ruled on it, the factual premise of the ethical charge could not be established in the disbarment proceeding. The complaint was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
• Forum Shopping: The IBP-CBD found Vazquez guilty of forum shopping because all three cases he filed—the disbarment case, the quo warranto proceeding with the HRET, and the perjury complaint with the City Prosecutor—questioned whether Atty. Kho was a natural-born citizen. The IBP-CBD found that these actions involved the same transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances, and identical subject matter and issues. The Court adopted and approved the IBP Report and Recommendation.
• Limited Finding by the IBP-CBD: Although the question of one's citizenship is not open to collateral attack, the Court acknowledged the IBP-CBD's pronouncement that it had to make a limited finding on citizenship because the alleged dishonesty hinged on that issue. The IBP-CBD clarified that its ruling was limited and could not strip or sustain respondent of his citizenship. The Court's dismissal rested on the absence of a competent court ruling, not on an adjudication of citizenship.

• Collateral Attack on Citizenship — An attack on a person's citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity; it cannot be raised collaterally. A disbarment case is not the proper venue to attack someone's citizenship. In this case, because no competent court had ruled on Atty. Kho's citizenship, the disbarment complaint predicated on an allegedly false claim of natural-born citizenship had no leg to stand on and was dismissed.
• Limited Finding on Citizenship in Disbarment — Although citizenship cannot be collaterally attacked, an investigating body may make a limited finding on citizenship when the alleged dishonesty hinges on it, but such finding cannot strip or sustain citizenship. The IBP-CBD made such a limited finding, and the Court acknowledged it, yet still dismissed the disbarment case for lack of a competent court ruling on citizenship.
• Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and shall do no falsehood. The charge that Atty. Kho violated these duties by declaring himself a natural-born Filipino citizen could not be established absent a competent court ruling on citizenship.
• Forum Shopping — The IBP-CBD found complainant guilty of forum shopping where the disbarment case, quo warranto proceeding, and perjury complaint all questioned the same respondent's natural-born citizenship and involved the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances, and identical subject matter and issues. The Court adopted and approved the IBP Report and Recommendation.

• "We have constantly ruled that an attack on a person's citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity." — This states the controlling rule that citizenship cannot be collaterally attacked and must be challenged in a direct proceeding.
• "A disbarment case is definitely not the proper venue to attack someone's citizenship." — This defines the specific procedural limitation applied to the disbarment complaint.
• "For the lack of any ruling from a competent court on respondent's citizenship, this disbarment case loses its only leg to stand on and, hence, must be dismissed." — This is the ratio decidendi: the absence of a prior competent court ruling on citizenship required dismissal of the disbarment case.
• "Although the question of one's citizenship is not open to collateral attack, the Court acknowledges the IBP-CBD's pronouncement that it had to make a limited finding thereon, since the alleged dishonesty hinged on this issue." — This explains why the IBP-CBD could make a limited finding on citizenship without violating the collateral-attack rule.

• Co vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 276 Phil. 758 (1991) — Cited for the rule that an attack on a person's citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity.
• Go vs. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, G.R. No. 191810, June 22, 2015 — Cited for the same rule that citizenship cannot be collaterally attacked and must be challenged in a direct action.

• Lawyer's Oath — The oath that a lawyer "will do no falsehood." Vazquez alleged that Atty. Kho violated this oath; the Court dismissed the complaint because the alleged falsehood depended on citizenship, which had not been ruled upon by a competent court.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Vazquez alleged that Atty. Kho violated this rule by declaring himself a natural-born Filipino citizen; the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.
• 1935 Constitution — Invoked by the parties and the IBP-CBD in assessing whether Atty. Kho was a natural-born Filipino citizen at birth and at the time of his election of Philippine citizenship. The Court did not resolve the citizenship question because no competent court had ruled on it.

• Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
• Lucas P. Bersamin
• Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
• Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa