Facts:
Atty. Luis V. Artiaga, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Enrique C. Villanueva. In a decision dated
July 29, 1988, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of unethical practices arising from his handling of multiple related proceedings involving the property occupied by
Glicerio Aquino against
Julian Estolano. The Court specifically found that respondent (first charge) caused Aquino to
perjure himself by alleging, in a verified complaint for forcible entry docketed as
Civil Case No. 192 in the Municipal Court of Los Banos, Laguna, an incorrect date of dispossession, and in an amended complaint shifted the alleged date of dispossession to a later period to enable the inferior court to acquire jurisdiction; the Court held that such resort to deception violated respondent’s oath to do no falsehood and constituted causing a felony. The Court further found (second charge) that respondent lacked
candor and respect toward his adversary and the courts by employing procedural steps to forestall Aquino’s rightful possession, including the filing of an urgent ex parte motion for clarification followed by an appeal, the filing of a petition for
certiorari after execution had become enforceable which the Court characterized as frivolous and a tactic to delay enforcement, and the continued resistance of Aquino to lawful orders of the court. It also found lack of candor in respondent’s subsequent litigation tactics, including filing a case for annulment of Estolano’s title which was dismissed for
res judicata and
prescription, and bringing another case before the
Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) (CAR Case No.
7043) for a determination of Aquino’s preferential right allegedly under agrarian laws, without disclosing prior lawsuits and decisions and while being aware of the absence of a tenancy relationship. Finally, the Court found (third charge) that respondent
abused the right of recourse to the courts by filing multiple actions for a cause repeatedly rejected, thereby obstructing the administration of justice and prostituting the privilege of the practice of law. On
April 2, 1978, despite the administrative complaint, respondent continued practicing law for several years and handled other matters. During that period, it was alleged that most of his clients were poor, landless tenant-farmers; that in
January 1987 he represented a chapter of the
IBP in a reconciliation and ceasefire matter; that thereafter
President Corazon Aquino appointed him Municipal Councilor and later appointed him
Provincial Fiscal of Laguna, which position he assumed on
February 9, 1987; and that after his suspension from the practice of law by the Court on
August 11, 1988, he took an indefinite leave of absence effective that date. In response to the
July 29, 1988 decision, respondent moved for reconsideration and sought lifting of his sanction, asserting good faith, lack of dishonest motive, and claimed
rehabilitation based on his conduct, public service appointments, awards, civic and religious involvement, and attestation of his character, and arguing that the delays and unfavorable outcomes were not attributable solely to him. The Office of the Solicitor General recommended a
six-month suspension. The Court, however, originally imposed suspension
indefinitely from the practice of law, conditioned on respondent’s ability to demonstrate rehabilitation and deserve resumption. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision, which was acted upon by a resolution dated
July 7, 1989, where the majority
granted the motion and lifted the suspension as immediately executory, while
Justice J. Feliciano dissented, insisting that the resolution reversed the earlier unanimous decision without adequate basis and that respondent had not proven rehabilitation after the original decision.
Issues:
Whether the Supreme Court erred in lifting respondent
Atty. Enrique C. Villanueva’s suspension from the practice of law on reconsideration, notwithstanding the earlier findings of unethical conduct including causing
perjury, lack of
candor, and
abuse of judicial remedies.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: