Williams vs. Enriquez

A disbarment proceeding cannot be used as a substitute for, or as complementary or supplementary to, a civil action to invalidate a deed such as a Declaration of Heirship and Partition, and where the real subject of the complaint is the validity of the document itself, dismissal for being civil in nature is required.

David W. Williams, an American citizen, and his wife, Marisa Bacatan Williams, acquired an interest in a portion of Lot 2920 in San Miguel, Bacong, Negros Oriental, originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 17264 in the name of Aurea Briones and later by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19723. Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez, a member of the Bar in good standing and a retired member of the judiciary, acted as counsel for five persons claiming as heirs of Aurea, under an arrangement for a one-sixth share of the lot as contingent fee. Understanding this lawyer-client and competing-ownership context is necessary because the ensuing criminal and civil suits and the challenged partition document all concern the same 13,432-square meter lot.

Aurea Briones applied for an original certificate of title over Lot 2920 in 1941 through cadastral proceedings, claiming acquisition from her father Lucas Briones, and was issued OCT No. 17264 as her paraphernal property, her husband Ciriaco Ventolero having died in the 1950s. In 1977 Aurea sold the 13,432-square meter lot by Deed of Absolute Sale to her granddaughter Josephine Verar without her husband's conformity, and tax declarations showed Aurea alone as owner. After Josephine's death, ownership passed to her 13-year-old son Orlando Verar Rian, Jr., who was taken in by his grandmother Francisca Ventolero Verar, Josephine's mother and Aurea's daughter; upon Francisca's death in 2001, Orlando learned of his ownership and in June 2001 sold three portions totaling 11,432 square meters, retaining 2,000 square meters at the southeast corner, petitioned for reconstitution of Josephine's lost title resulting in issuance of new duplicate TCT No. 047485, and in September 2001 had the lot surveyed and subdivided with DENR approval into Lots 2920-A to 2920-D.

Thereafter, relatives of Aurea engaged respondent as counsel to recover the property for a contingent fee of one-sixth of the original lot, taking Josephine's original deed of sale and copy of TCT No. 19723 from Francisca's effects and insisting the 1977 deed was only a mortgage because of alleged gross inadequacy of price. Respondent drafted a Declaration of Heirship and Partition dated January 14, 2002 dividing the lot into six parts (Lots 2920-A to 2920-F), with Lot 2920-F at the southeast assigned to himself, reciting that Aurea was owner in fee simple, died intestate during the Second World War leaving no debts, that Josephine Veran held TCT No. T-19723 merely as trustee for co-heirs, and that the land remained undivided, uncommitted and undisposed. The document was initially unregistered and unnotarized. In March 2002 complainant's wife was offered a 1,000-square meter portion identified under both the DENR plan and the Declaration, and on April 10, 2002 she bought a 2,000-square meter portion from Orlando with a deposit pending verification, but withheld full payment after a later inspection revealed a marker hidden inside the purchased lot.

When complainant and his wife visited the portion on May 16 and May 23, 2002, they found bamboo posts and Francisco Ventolero and Desiderio Ventolero stringing barbed wire on respondent's instructions; after complainant photographed and pulled down the fence and confronted respondent, respondent brought the Declaration to Dumaguete City on the same day, May 23, 2002, for notarization. Francisco, using the surname Briones though his correct surname was Ventolero, then filed a malicious mischief complaint docketed as Criminal Case No. 3051 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Bacong on a complaint-affidavit drafted by respondent. Complainant alleged respondent sent the Lupon Tagapamayapa to offer dropping the case for PHP 250,000.00 cash for the one-sixth share, that his wife backed out then renegotiated a reduced price with Orlando shouldering anti-respondent litigation costs, eventually obtaining a new TCT over Lot 2920-D with confirmatory and partition-waiver deeds, and that respondent still accused his wife of cheating the Bureau of Internal Revenue, filed a forcible entry complaint on December 5, 2002 as Civil Case No. 390 attaching Josephine's TCT, and filed a third amended complaint on May 6, 2004 as Civil Case No. 3443 to annul his wife's deed, shifting theories from wartime death to cheating in 1977 to conjugal ownership. Complainant filed a falsification case on June 30, 2003 over the Declaration in which prosecutors found probable cause, and he was eventually acquitted in the malicious mischief case.

• Falsified Partition Document: Complainant alleged that respondent drafted a falsified Declaration of Heirship and Partition dated January 14, 2002 dividing Lot 2920 into six shares, containing false recitals that Josephine held title only in trust, that Aurea died during World War II, and that the lot was undivided and undisposed.
• Baseless Suits and Extortion: Complainant maintained that respondent filed a baseless malicious mischief case on May 28, 2002 and five more baseless cases, offered through the lupon to drop the case if his wife bought the one-sixth share for PHP 250,000.00, and misrepresented his client's surname as Briones instead of Ventolero in violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Bad-Faith Notarization and Fencing: Complainant argued that respondent acted in bad faith by financing a barbed-wire fence on the 2,000-square meter portion, having the Declaration notarized in Dumaguete City only on May 23, 2002 after the confrontation, and using stolen title copies to support the forcible entry and annulment suits.

• Good Standing and Malicious Imputations: Respondent averred that he was an IBP member of good standing and retired judiciary member, and that complainant, as a foreigner with a mentality maligning Filipinos, made reckless, malicious, groundless and irrelevant imputations out of vengeance after losing the forcible entry case.
• Harassment Suits and Sub Judice: Respondent countered that complainant used his wife to file harassment suits including Administrative Case No. 6353 on the same issues, that the present case was likewise for harassment, and that contingent fees are allowed while matters raised remained sub judice.
• Ownership by Clients and Forcible Entry by Complainant: Respondent maintained that complainant took advantage of his clients' indigency to grab Lot 2920, that complainant forcibly entered the lot on May 23, 2002 and destroyed the fence, and that probable cause for malicious mischief against complainant was found and affirmed by RTC Branch 44, Dumaguete City.
• Breach of Confidentiality: Respondent argued that complainant violated confidentiality by furnishing the IBP Report and Recommendation to the Office of the City Prosecutor in I.S. Case No. 2006-0450 and to RTC Branch 44 in Civil Case No. 13404, warranting contempt and dissolution of the IBP resolution.

• Confidentiality and Contempt: Whether complainant should be cited in contempt for alleged breach of the rule on confidentiality of administrative proceedings against lawyers.
• Civil Nature of Complaint: Whether complainant may avail of the present administrative case to invalidate the Declaration of Heirship and Partition affecting the subject property.

• Confidentiality and Contempt: No. Furnishing the IBP Report and Recommendation to tribunals hearing related cases involving the same property did not violate confidentiality, which covers proceedings but not the mere existence or pendency of disciplinary actions.
• Civil Nature of Complaint: No. The complaint, in substance seeking invalidation of the Declaration of Heirship and Partition, is civil in nature and beyond disciplinary jurisdiction, so dismissal was required.

• Confidentiality and Contempt: Confidentiality in lawyer disciplinary actions is not absolute and does not extend to the mere existence or pendency of such actions. Applied here, complainant's submission of the IBP Report and Recommendation to the Office of the City Prosecutor and RTC Branch 44, both of Dumaguete City, merely informed courts where related cases involving the same property and parties were pending, consistent with Atty. Guanzon vs. Atty. Dojillo. Even when attached to court filings, such documents remain private and confidential under A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, Canon II, so no breach warranting contempt or dissolution of the IBP resolution was committed.
• Civil Nature of Complaint: Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, concerned with public interest and fitness to remain an officer of the court rather than restitution, and issues are not confined to the parties' stipulations. Here, although framed as disbarment for drafting false statements, the real subject was the validity of the January 14, 2002 Declaration of Heirship and Partition allocating Lot 2920-F to respondent. Because an administrative case is not an alternative, complementary or supplementary remedy to judicial actions, and jurisdiction over annulment is civil, the complaint had to be dismissed, per Melad-Ong vs. Sabban and Monticalbo vs. Maraya, Jr.

• Confidentiality in disciplinary actions is not absolute — Proceedings against attorneys are to be kept private and confidential, but the rule does not cover under all circumstances every disclosure of any nature, particularly the mere existence or pendency of disciplinary actions. Applied here, attaching or furnishing the IBP Report and Recommendation to courts hearing related cases to inform them of its existence did not per se violate confidentiality.
• Disbarment proceedings are sui generis — Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, disbarment is an investigation into the conduct of officers of the court whose primary objective is public interest and preservation of the purity of the profession, with the determinative question being fitness to retain privileges as attorney. Hence issues are not limited by party stipulation and the case is not instituted for complainant's restitution, as reiterated from In Re Almacen through Melad-Ong vs. Sabban.
• Administrative remedy not a substitute for judicial remedies — Filing an administrative case is not an alternative to other judicial remedies provided by law, neither complementary nor supplementary thereto. Applied here, a disbarment complaint whose real object is to declare void a Declaration of Heirship and Partition must be dismissed as civil in nature for lack of disciplinary jurisdiction.

• "It must also be pointed out that the confidentiality in disciplinary actions for lawyers is not absolute. It is not to be applied, under any circumstance, to all disclosures of any nature." — States the controlling limitation on confidentiality, relied upon to reject the contempt charge for disclosing the IBP report's existence to related tribunals.
• "The confidentiality rule requires only that proceedings against attorneys be kept private and confidential. The rule does not extend so far that it covers the mere existence or pendency of disciplinary actions." — Defines the scope of the confidentiality rule and justifies informing courts of the disciplinary action involving the same property.
• "Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and does not involve - a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers." — Canonical formulation of the sui generis nature of disbarment, explaining why restitution of the complainant is not its object.
• "Indeed, the filing of an administrative case is not an alternative to the other judicial remedies provided by law, and neither is it complementary or supplementary to such actions." — Articulates the ratio for dismissing the complaint as an improper vehicle to annul the Declaration of Heirship and Partition.

• Atty. Guanzon vs. Atty. Dojillo, 838 Phil. 228 (2018) — Controlling precedent on confidentiality; followed to hold that attaching disciplinary documents to inform a court of their existence does not per se violate the rule.
• Melad-Ong vs. Sabban, A.C. No. 10511, January 04, 2022 — Controlling precedent on sui generis nature of disbarment and fitness standard; followed to characterize the complaint and limit its proper object.
• In Re Almacen — Cited within Melad-Ong vs. Sabban for the proposition that disciplinary power purges unworthy members to preserve honest administration of justice; applied as doctrinal foundation.
• Monticalbo vs. Maraya, Jr., 664 Phil. (2011) — Cited for the rule that administrative filing is not alternative, complementary or supplementary to judicial remedies; applied to dismiss the civil-natured complaint.
• Williams vs. Atty. Enriquez, 518 Phil. 372 (2006) — Prior related administrative case where respondent was found guilty of gross ignorance of law, reprimanded and sternly warned; noted as background to complainant's delay and repetition claims.

• Canon II, Sections 1-4, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC — Defines confidential information relating to pending cases and internal deliberations, restricts disclosure to authorized persons, and treats post-decision working papers as remaining confidential; applied to hold that IBP materials attached to court records remain private and confidential even without a contemptuous breach.
• Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Invoked by complainant to allege respondent knowingly misrepresented his client's surname and filed unfounded suits; the administrative merits were not reached after dismissal on jurisdictional ground.
• Section 1 and Section 4, Rule 74, Rules of Court — Cited in the Declaration of Heirship itself as basis for extrajudicial settlement, partition and adjudication subject to liabilities; relevant to identifying the document as a civil settlement instrument rather than a disciplinary subject.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions adding significant reasoning were recounted in the text.