Case Digest (A.C. No. 11304)
Facts:
Leonardo L. Sarmiento and Richard G. Halili v. Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr., A.C. No. 11304, June 28, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainants Leonardo L. Sarmiento and Richard G. Halili are real‑estate business associates; respondent is Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) investigated and the IBP Board of Governors (IBP‑BOG) adopted a recommendation to disbar respondent, prompting this administrative case before the Court (A.C. No. 11304).In 2013 the complainants met respondent, who offered for sale a 374‑sqm parcel in Parañaque covered by TCT No. 68952 and represented that he was the absolute owner. He claimed title had been conveyed to him by his parents through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 14 April 2012, and asserted he was their sole heir so no other claimant would arise. Relying on these representations, the complainants agreed to buy the property for P3,740,000.00; a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed between respondent (as purported attorney‑in‑fact of his parents) and Sylvia Sarmiento (wife of Leonardo). TCT No. 68952 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 010‑2013000507 in Sylvia’s name.
Subsequently respondent’s mother Natividad and the heirs of his father filed Civil Case No. 14‑040 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Paranaque City, seeking nullification of the SPA, the Deed of Sale and the replacement TCT. During that litigation the complainants discovered that the SPA dated 14 April 2012 was falsified: respondent’s father, Gregorio, had died on April 4, 1997 (Contra Costa County death certificate), so he could not have signed the 2012 SPA, and Natividad’s signature on the 2012 SPA differed from her genuine signature as shown on her OSCA card. Respondent also had multiple living siblings who participated in Civil Case No. 14‑040 and even designated Rene Fernando as attorney‑in‑fact. To preserve the title the complainants settled Civil Case No. 14‑040 with Natividad and Gregorio’s heirs for P2,992,000.00 (shared by the complainants); the settlement was approved by the RTC on 4 November 2014. The complainants demanded reimbursement from respondent, who ignored them.
The complainants filed (a) an estafa complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor (NPS Docket No. XV‑08‑INV‑15A00026) and (b) a disbarment petition before the IBP (CBD Case No. 15‑4471) attaching the TCTs, the SPAs, the Deed of Sale, death certificate, OSCA card, other SPAs among siblings, and the RTC order. The IBP‑CBD required respondent to answer; he responded first by letter (claiming harassment and seeking P100M in damages), then failed to appear at the scheduled IBP‑CBD hearing of 25 May 2015 (the case was deemed submitted), and later filed an Answer asserting, inter alia, that the complainants lacked legal personality because their petition’s verification allegedly misrepresented that no other proceedings involving the same issues were pending, and that the 2012 SPA was not a forgery but reiterated prior SPAs.
On 2 June 2015 the IBP‑CBD issued a Report and Recommendation finding that (a) the 14 April 2012 SPA was a forgery, (b) respondent ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complainants lack legal personality to file the disbarment petition — i.e., did their verification constitute perjury because of a pending estafa preliminary investigation?
- Did respondent commit acts warranting disbarment for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a lawyer by using a forged SPA and related deceitful representations in the s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)