Title
Arienda vs. Aguila
Case
A.C. No. 5637
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2005
Cristina Arienda sought estate administration; Atty. Aguila opposed, representing decedent’s common-law wife. Disbarment complaint dismissed; insufficient evidence of deceit or misconduct.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5637)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Complainant: Cristina A. Arienda, who filed a Petition for Letters of Administration for the intestate estate of her late father, Ernesto Arienda.
    • Respondent: Atty. Porfirio Aguila, the legal counsel of Elisa Menes-Arienda, the common-law wife of the decedent, who opposed the petition.
  2. Background of the Case:

    • Cristina A. Arienda filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Olongapo City, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 80-0-2000.
    • Elisa Menes-Arienda, represented by Atty. Porfirio Aguila, opposed the petition, claiming her rights and those of her daughter, Ernessa Arienda, over the estate.
  3. Allegations Against Atty. Aguila:

    • Atty. Aguila allegedly complicated the settlement of the estate by filing the opposition.
    • He was accused of favoring Elisa Menes-Arienda, the "mistress" of the decedent, instead of being neutral.
    • He was charged with using a falsified marriage contract between the decedent and Elisa Menes-Arienda.
    • Complainant alleged that the statements in the opposition were "all lies" and that Atty. Aguila lied in his Motion for Substitution regarding the existence and rights of Cristina Arienda.
  4. Respondent’s Defense:

    • Atty. Aguila denied all allegations, stating that he acted in good faith as Elisa Menes-Arienda’s counsel.
    • He explained that the marriage contract was submitted to prove that the decedent represented himself as single, and Elisa believed him, leading to their marriage and the birth of their daughter.
    • He argued that the falsity of the marriage contract must be determined in the appropriate proceeding and that he had no knowledge of any falsity.
  5. Investigation by the IBP:

    • The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case.
    • Commissioner Dennis B. Funa found that Atty. Aguila acted within his rights as a lawyer and recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
    • The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint based on the Commissioner’s report.

Issue:

The sole issue in this case is whether Atty. Porfirio Aguila should be disbarred on the grounds of deceit, misconduct, and use of a falsified public document.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.