A.C. No. 10261 - Lim vs. Mendoza

Complainant Rufina Luy Lim, surviving spouse of Pastor Y. Lim, filed a disbarment complaint against Respondent Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza for violations of multiple Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Pastor Y. Lim allegedly used conjugal funds to create numerous dummy corporations (e.g., Skyline International, Inc.; Nell Mart, Inc.; Skunac Corporation; etc.) under the names of mistresses and employees to defeat Rufina’s property claims.

On March 17, 1995, Rufina filed a joint petition for the settlement of Pastor’s estate before the RTC of Quezon City. On August 17, 1995, Miguel Lim, acting for his mother Yao Hiong, filed a Petition for Intervention under oath, declaring the corporations as dummies and the titled properties as Pastor’s conjugal estate.
Atty. Mendoza, as notary public, notarized the Petition for Intervention (Doc. No. 309, Page 63, Book III, Series of 1995) and the affidavits of Teresa T. Lim, Lani G. Wenceslao, Susan Sarcia-Sabado and Miguel Lim, all attesting to the dummy status of the corporations.

Despite his participation in the notarizations, Atty. Mendoza later appeared as counsel for Skyline, asserting its independent ownership of real properties and defending its interest against Rufina—even knowing the company’s dummy character and a prior judicial declaration that such corporations formed part of Rufina’s conjugal estate.
As Vice-President of Nell Mart, Inc., he demanded tenants vacate lots covered by TCT Nos. 236236 and 236237, though the company was a dummy. In his pleadings, he used intemperate language accusing Rufina of collecting “BILLIONS OF PESOS” in rent “DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES.”

Atty. Mendoza contended that he and Rufina had been legally separated since 1972 by a consent agreement partitioning their conjugal properties; he cited an RTC ruling excluding certain bank deposits from Pastor’s estate.
He claimed the Petition for Intervention was a “pre-arranged” agreement between parties and hearsay because intervenors died before testifying. He alleged Rufina’s disbarment complaints were retaliatory, noting a prior IBP complaint involving the same property issues.

On March 4, 2009, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a two-year suspension for respondent’s ignorance of law (Canons 1 & 5 CPR), misrepresentation, notarizing illegal acts, use of offensive language, and failure to comply with position paper formalities.
On April 16, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation (CBD Case No. 08-2263).

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP findings but, noting recidivism, elevated the penalty from suspension to disbarment for repeated violations of Canons 1, 5, 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR.

Did Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza commit professional misconduct by drafting, signing, and notarizing pleadings and affidavits attesting to facts he later denied, thereby violating Canons 1, 5, 10 (Rule 10.01) and other provisions of the CPR and the Rules of Court?
What is the appropriate disciplinary sanction considering the nature, number, and repetition of the infractions?