G.R. No. 122274 - Llenes vs. Dicdican

Rufina Luy Lim filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19 and specific rules including Rule 10.01) and Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Complaint arose from litigation over properties allegedly concealed through dummy corporations and from the notarization and signing of pleadings and affidavits by Respondent.

The late Pastor Y. Lim (Pastor) died on June 11, 1994, leaving an estate in dispute between his surviving spouse Rufina and others.
Rufina alleged that during Pastor's lifetime he used conjugal funds to create several dummy corporations (including Skyline International, Inc., Nell Mart, Inc., and others) using mistresses and employees as incorporators or stockholders to defeat her claims to the properties.
On March 17, 1995, Rufina filed a Joint Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the settlement of Pastor's estate.

Miguel Lim, on behalf of his mother Yao Hiong, filed a Petition for Intervention dated August 17, 1995, asserting under oath that Skyline and other corporations were dummy corporations and that the named incorporators and officers were mere dummies and that the parcels titled in the corporations were really owned by Pastor.
The Petition for Intervention was executed before and notarized by Atty. Mendoza (registered in his Notarial Books as Doc. No. 309, Page No. 63, Book No. III, Series of 1995).
Atty. Mendoza also notarized affidavits of Teresa T. Lim, Lani G. Wenceslao, Susan Sarcia-Sabado and Miguel, which admitted under oath that Pastor created dummy corporations, that purported stockholders paid nothing for shares, and that the affiants had no actual participation in corporate operations.

Despite having notarized the Petition and affidavits described above, Atty. Mendoza, acting as counsel for Skyline, later argued that Skyline was the registered owner of several real properties and had the right to protect its interest against Rufina.
Atty. Mendoza, acting as Vice-President of Nell Mart, demanded that tenants of lots covered by TCT Nos. 236236 and 236237 vacate, asserting Nell Mart's ownership while allegedly knowing Nell Mart to be a dummy corporation.
In his pleadings, Atty. Mendoza used intemperate language claiming Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" in rentals which were "DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES."

Atty. Mendoza averred that Rufina and Pastor had been separated for over 26 years and had entered into a May 11, 1972 Agreement partitioning their conjugal properties.
He contended that the 1972 Agreement, although "improper for notarial act," was valid and binding between the parties and that certain bank deposits in the names of Nell Mart and Skunac Corporation were not properties of Pastor's estate (citing RTC Special Proceeding Case No. Q-95-23334).
He admitted filing the Petition for Intervention but claimed it was "pre-arranged between Rufina and Miguel Y. Lim" and later argued the Petition's statements were mere hearsay because Miguel and Yao Hiong died before testifying.
Atty. Mendoza alleged that Rufina filed second disbarment complaints against him in retaliation for losses in other cases.

Commissioner Norberto B. Ruiz of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Report and Recommendation on March 4, 2009, recommending suspension of Atty. Mendoza from the practice of law for two years.
The IBP-CBD Report found respond...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether Atty. Mendoza violated Canons 1, 5, and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by drafting, signing, and notarizing pleadings and affidavits averring that the subject corporations were dummies and later adopting inconsistent positions.
Whether Atty. Mendoza committed misconduct by asserting the binding effect of the May 11, 1972 Agreement against third persons contrary to law.

Whether Atty. Mendoza used intemperate, abusive, or offensive language in his pleadings in violation of the CPR.
Whether the notarization and counsel's signature on pleadings create a presumption of veracity and bar later contradictory assertions.

(Subscriber-Only)