Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 1092)
Facts:
Vicente Lim v. Attorney Francisco G. Antonio, A.C. No. 1092, October 27, 1983, the Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court. The complaint was an administrative charge filed by Vicente Lim (complainant) against Attorney Francisco G. Antonio (respondent), accusing the respondent of changing his name from "Paquito Lim Antonio Clemente" as shown in his birth certificate to "Francisco G. Antonio" without judicial authority, in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 as amended by Republic Act No. 6085, Sec. 1.Respondent answered, denying the use of any alias and denying falsification. He attached a photostatic copy of his birth certificate showing the surname "Antonio," and several public documents — a Masbate High School diploma (1953), University of the East diplomas (BBA 1956; LL.B. 1961), official transcript, Board of Examiners certification as a CPA (July 22, 1957), and his Supreme Court certificate of admission to the bar (1962) — all bearing the surname "Antonio." He explained that "Paquito" was a nickname in his birth record and argued that any change alleged concerned school records rather than entries in the civil register, and therefore did not require a court order.
The matter was referred to Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza (assisted by Asst. Solicitor General Eduardo Montenegro and Solicitor Oswaldo D. Agcaoili) for investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report (July 18, 1983) the Solicitor General noted this was the second disciplinary complaint by Lim against the same respondent (the earlier Administrative Case No. 848 was dismissed by the Court on September 30, 1971). The Report recounted related criminal prosecutions: a Commonwealth Act No. 142 charge before the City Court of Manila dismissed by Judge Antonio Padua Paredes (June 4, 1974), and Criminal Case No. 307 before the Court of First Instance of Masbate which was quashed (Aug. 5, 1974). The Report observed that Lim had been the principal prosecution witness in one dismissal and that respondent had previously acted as private prosecutor in cases that resulted in Lim’s conviction for falsification, suggesting ill motive and retaliation.
The Solicitor General recommended dismissal of the complaint and suggested an admonition for Lim. The Court found the complaint unfounded and motivated by malice and revenge, dismissed the complaint, and — deeming admonition too mild ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the administrative complaint against Attorney Francisco G. Antonio properly grounded or was it vexatious and lacking in good faith?
- Did respondent change his name without court authority in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142 as amended by Republic Act No. 6085, Sec. 1, or otherwise commit falsification of public documents?
- If the complaint was malicious, what sanction, if any, sho...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)