Velasco vs. Doroin

A lawyer's act of forging a deed of sale and deceiving a compulsory heir into signing an extrajudicial settlement that deprives the legal spouse of her legitime constitutes a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary sanction, including suspension or disbarment. The penalty imposed depends on the gravity of the misconduct, with the falsification of a public document and subsequent absconding from criminal proceedings meriting the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

Complainant Mary Jane D. Velasco filed a disbarment complaint against respondent lawyers Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno for forgery and falsification constitutive of malpractice. The respondents served as collaborating counsels for the oppositor, Josephine Abarquez, in Special Proceedings Case No. Q-96-27628 for the settlement of the estate of the late Eduardo Doroin, complainant's father, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87. The deceased died on January 21, 1996, in Papua New Guinea, leaving behind his legal wife and children, including complainant, as well as alleged illegitimate children and a paramour.

Complainant Mary Jane D. Velasco was appointed Administratrix in Special Proceedings Case No. Q-96-27628 for the settlement of the estate of her late father, Dr. Eduardo Doroin, who died on January 21, 1996, in Papua New Guinea. In that special proceeding, respondents Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno served as collaborating counsels for the oppositor, Josephine Abarquez, the paramour of complainant's father.

On March 21, 1996, Atty. Doroin induced complainant by deceitful means to sign an Extra-Judicial Settlement and Deed of Partition. The deed allotted complainant the sum of ₱1,216,078.00, gave Josephine Abarquez the share of ₱7,296,468.00, and allotted complainant's two alleged illegitimate brothers and one alleged illegitimate sister a similar sum of ₱1,216,075.00 each, with Atty. Doroin alleging that such sharing was in accordance with law. No share was assigned to complainant's mother, who was the legal wife of Dr. Eduardo Doroin.

To partially satisfy complainant's share, Atty. Doroin required complainant to sign a paper which was an alleged Confirmation of Authority to Sell the property of complainant's father located at Kingspoint Subdivision, Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 34885. Complainant told Atty. Doroin she would first consult a lawyer regarding the legality of the document before signing it. Eventually, she was not able to sign the Confirmation because her lawyer, Atty. Marapao, failed to confer and negotiate with Atty. Doroin regarding the same.

When complainant visited the lot at Kingspoint Subdivision in June 1996, no house was constructed thereon, but when she visited again in January 1999, a four-door townhouse had been built. The caretaker informed her that the owner was one Evangeline Reyes-Tonemura. Complainant later learned that the property, which was one of the properties submitted to the court handling the Special Proceedings case in the Inventory of Property dated April 3, 1996, was sold by Atty. Doroin to Evangeline Reyes-Tonemura by forging the signature of complainant's late father. Atty. Hector B. Centeno, a Notary Public of Quezon City, knowing that complainant's father was already dead as of January 21, 1996, made it appear in the Deed of Absolute Sale that complainant's father appeared before him in Quezon City on January 17, 1997.

Records show that a case for Falsification of Public Document was filed against Atty. Centeno before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 39, docketed as Criminal Case No. 104869. Atty. Centeno was arraigned on September 12, 2001, and pleaded "not guilty." After arraignment, Atty. Centeno did not appear in court anymore and jumped bail.

• Forgery and Falsification: Complainant alleged that respondent lawyers forged the deed of sale of her late father's property and forced her to sign the deed of extrajudicial settlement by explaining to her that it was "in accordance with law."
• Deprivation of Inheritance: Complainant claimed that the extrajudicial settlement deprived her mother, the legal wife of the deceased, of her rightful share in the estate as a compulsory heir.

N/A — The respondents failed to file their comment on the complaint despite due notice on several occasions and failed to appear at the scheduled IBP hearings. They were declared in default, and their claims and allegations remained uncontroverted.

• Violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1: Whether Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno are guilty of violating their lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which would merit their disbarment.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the penalty of indefinite suspension or disbarment should be imposed on each respondent given the gravity of their respective misconduct.

• Violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1: Yes. The complained actuations of the respondent lawyers constitute a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath to uphold the law and the basic tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility that no lawyer shall engage in dishonest conduct. The guilt of the respondent lawyers is beyond dispute, as their failure to answer the complaint and appear at the IBP hearings left the complainant's allegations uncontroverted.
• Appropriate Penalty: Atty. Charlie Doroin is suspended indefinitely, and Atty. Hector Centeno is disbarred. The Court agreed with the IBP's modification that indefinite suspension was the more appropriate penalty for Atty. Doroin, but could not be as lenient with Atty. Centeno, who, aside from committing a dishonest act, also committed a criminal offense by falsifying a public document and thereafter absconded from the criminal proceeding against him after posting bail.

• Violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1: Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. The Court cited Marcelo vs. Javier for the proposition that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and that 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. The Court noted that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during good behavior, which can be deprived only for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the case must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. Here, the respondents' failure to answer the complaint and appear at the IBP hearings left the complainant's claims uncontroverted. Citing Ngayan vs. Tugade, the Court ruled that a lawyer's failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court further reasoned that elementary succession law provides that compulsory heirs like the widowed spouse shall have a share in the estate by way of legitimes, and no extrajudicial settlement can deprive the spouse of said right except if she gives it up for lawful consideration, but never when the spouse is not a party to the said settlement. The Civil Code reminds us that we must "give every man his due."
• Appropriate Penalty: The Court was mindful that disbarment is a grave penalty, considering that the license to practice law, though not a property right, sustains a lawyer's primary means of livelihood, and stripping someone of such license amounts to stripping one of a career and a means to keep himself alive. Thus, the Court agreed with the IBP's modification that indefinite suspension was the more appropriate penalty for Atty. Doroin. However, the Court could not be as lenient with Atty. Centeno, who, aside from committing a dishonest act by depriving a person of her rightful inheritance, also committed a criminal offense when he falsified a public document and thereafter absconded from the criminal proceeding against him after having posted bail. The Court also reminded the IBP and its regional and city chapters to maintain an updated record of the office and residence addresses of their members to help facilitate looking for lawyers, as officers of the court should be readily available upon the Court's beckoning.

• Dishonest Conduct of Lawyers (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility) — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court applied this rule to hold that the forgery of a deed of sale and the deceitful inducement of a compulsory heir to sign an extrajudicial settlement that deprived the legal spouse of her legitime constituted a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Failure to Answer Complaint and Appear at Investigation as Evidence of Misconduct — A lawyer's failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office, in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court applied this doctrine to find the respondents' guilt beyond dispute, as their non-participation left the complainant's allegations uncontroverted.
• Legitime of Compulsory Heirs — Compulsory heirs, including the widow or widower, shall have a share in the estate by way of legitimes, and no extrajudicial settlement can deprive the spouse of said right except if she gives it up for lawful consideration, but never when the spouse is not a party to the said settlement. The Court applied this principle of succession law to demonstrate the unlawfulness of the extrajudicial settlement prepared by the respondents.
• Disbarment as a Grave Penalty — Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and a lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during good behavior, which can be deprived only for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard. The Court applied this doctrine in determining the appropriate penalty, recognizing that the license to practice law sustains a lawyer's primary means of livelihood, but that the gravity of the misconduct may warrant the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

• "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." — This is the canonical text of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the controlling provision under which the respondents were found guilty.
• "The complained actuations of the respondent lawyers constitute a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath to uphold the law and the basic tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility that no lawyer shall engage in dishonest conduct." — This passage states the ratio decidendi of the Court's finding of guilt against the respondent lawyers.
• "Elementary it is in succession law that compulsory heirs like the widowed spouse shall have a share in the estate by way of legitimes and no extrajudicial settlement can deprive the spouse of said right except if she gives it up for lawful consideration, but never when the spouse is not a party to the said settlement." — This passage articulates the legal basis for the unlawfulness of the extrajudicial settlement prepared by the respondents, demonstrating their violation of the lawyer's oath.
• "However, we cannot be as lenient with Atty. Hector Centeno who, aside from committing a dishonest act by depriving a person of her rightful inheritance, also committed a criminal offense when he falsificated a public document and thereafter absconded from the criminal proceeding against him after having posted bail." — This passage explains the Court's rationale for imposing the harsher penalty of disbarment on Atty. Centeno as opposed to the indefinite suspension imposed on Atty. Doroin.

• Marcelo vs. Javier, A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 1 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, with the right to practice law during good behavior.
• Ngayan vs. Tugade, A.C. No. 2490, February 7, 1991, 193 SCRA 779 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that a lawyer's failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office, in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. vs. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 406 — Cited for the proposition that lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether dealing with their clients or the public at large.
• Ere vs. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December 14, 1999, 320 SCRA 617 — Cited for the proposition that a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.
• Santos vs. Dichoso, A.C. No. 1825, August 22, 1978, 84 SCRA 622 — Cited for the rule that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the case must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This is the primary provision under which the respondents were found guilty of malpractice.
• Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Pertains to the lawyer's oath of office, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and obey the lawful orders of authorities. The Court cited this provision in relation to the respondents' failure to answer the complaint and appear at the IBP investigation.
• Article 887, Civil Code — Enumerates the compulsory heirs, including the widow or widower, who shall have a share in the estate by way of legitimes. The Court applied this provision to demonstrate that the extrajudicial settlement prepared by the respondents unlawfully deprived complainant's mother, the legal wife, of her legitime.
• Article 19, Civil Code — Provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The Court cited this provision as a reminder of the standard of conduct required.
• Rule 74, Section 1, Rules of Court — Pertains to the proper procedure for extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. The Court cited this provision in relation to the requirement that the spouse cannot be deprived of her legitime in an extrajudicial settlement to which she is not a party.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno; Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Ruben T. Reyes, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion. Associate Justices Adolfo S. Azcuna and Dante O. Tinga were on official leave.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.