A.M. No. P-07-2403 - Re: Toledo vs. Toledo

Complainants – Relatives of the deceased Florencia R. Toledo, including Regidor R. Toledo, Ronaldo Toledo, and Joeffrey Toledo, among others.
Respondent – Atty. Jerry Radam Toledo, Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 259, ParaAaque City, who is also a family member.
Deceased – Florencia R. Toledo, registered owner of a parcel of land in Tarlac (TCT No. 125017), died intestate on December 14, 2002.

Alleged Concealment – Respondent is accused of concealing his possession of the original Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 125017 after Florencia’s death, prompting complainants to execute an Affidavit of Loss for the document.
Petition for Duplicate Copy – Complainants, unaware of respondent’s possession, filed a verified petition for the issuance of the duplicate title before the RTC of Tarlac City, only to withdraw it when respondent opposed the petition by asserting his claim that he had purchased a part of the property from Florencia.
Estate Settlement Petition – Subsequently, respondent filed a petition for the settlement of Florencia’s intestate estate before the RTC, Branch 260, ParaAaque City, proposing a partition that would allocate 7,681 sq. m. to the complainants and 8,000 sq. m. to himself and his sisters.
Dispute Over Deals and Deed of Sale – Complainants questioned the validity of a Deed of Sale presented by the respondent, citing discrepancies such as erasures, incongruous dates (e.g., transaction date versus community tax certificate date), and improbabilities regarding the location of the signing of the document.

Perjury Complaint – On October 28, 2003, respondent filed a criminal complaint for perjury against some of the complainants for executing an Affidavit of Loss to obtain a duplicate title; the complaint was later dismissed for lack of probable cause.
Violation of PD No. 651 – Respondent initiated another case against select complainants concerning the processing of Florencia’s death certificate, which led to a municipal decision acquitting some parties and convicting one for violation of the presidential decree.
Charge of Immorality – Complainants accused respondent of living with his common-law wife, Normita, and engaging in behavior unbecoming of his position, including allegations of using his influence improperly, exhibiting unruly and bullying conduct, and allegedly being a drunkard.

Denial of Allegations – The respondent described the complaints as malicious conjectures and asserted that many of the disputed transactions were valid, reflecting steps he took to secure the estate and prevent further dissipation of the property.
Evidence Presented – In his Comment, respondent submitted Normita’s affidavit, detailing their arrangement to remain unmarried due to financial constraints and her career plans, and refuted claims regarding his personal conduct or drunkenness.
Emphasis on Pending Cases – Respondent highlighted that several issues, particularly those relating to the estate and property transactions, were already pending in other courts and should be resolved through those processes.

Whether the administrative complaint against respondent for alleged violations can be entertained when several of the underlying issues (property disputes, annulment of a deed of sale, etc.) are pending before the trial courts.
Whether the conduct attributed to respondent falls within the ambit of an administrative inquiry, or if it should be reserved for resolution through the substantive civil and criminal proceedings already underway.

Whether the respondent’s alleged abuse of position in relation to the estate of Florencia R. Toledo constitutes a violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the irregularities pointed out in the property transactions (e.g., questionable deed of sale, erasures, inconsistencies in documentary evidence) warrant administrative sanctions.

Whether respondent’s cohabitation and relationship with his common-law wife, Normita, amount to conduct that is grossly immoral and thus disqualifying for a public official and court employee.
Whether such behavior undermines the integrity and public trust inherent in the judicial system, thereby justifying disciplinary measures.

Whether the controversies regarding property distribution and the execution of certain documents (e.g., Affidavit of Loss) are inherently intertwined with the administrative complaints or should be deferred to the judicial resolution of those pending cases.