G.R. No. 199133 - Tumpag vs. Tumpag

Mary Jane D. Velasco filed a disbarment complaint on March 31, 1999, against Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno.
The complaint alleged that the respondent lawyers engaged in forgery and falsification constitutive of malpractice.
The complaint is tied to an extrajudicial settlement in a Special Proceedings case concerning the estate of the late Eduardo Doroin.

On June 21, 1999, the Court’s Second Division instructed the respondent lawyers to file their comment on the complaint within ten (10) days.
Respondents’ counsel, Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, filed a motion on August 24, 1999, for a sixty (60) day extension to file said comment.
The motion was granted on October 4, 1999 with a warning that no further extensions would be allowed.
The respondent lawyers ultimately failed to file their comments, triggering subsequent court actions.

On June 20, 2001, the Court ordered the respondent lawyers and their counsel to show cause as to why disciplinary sanctions or contempt proceedings should not be imposed for their failure to comply.
Attempts to serve the resolution were frustrated as copies were returned unserved or marked “party moved out,” with only Atty. Doroin eventually receiving notice on July 27, 2001.
On April 17, 2002, the Court directed the complainant to submit the correct addresses of Atty. Alcid and Atty. Centeno; simultaneously, Atty. Doroin was fined Php 500.00 and ordered to submit his comment.

On July 23, 2003, the complainant was ordered to show cause for her own non-compliance regarding previous directives.
In the same resolution, the fine against Atty. Doroin was increased to Php 1,000.00, with an alternative sanction of five (5) days’ imprisonment should he fail to pay and submit his comment within ten (10) days.
Although a report on August 2, 2004, acknowledged that Atty. Doroin paid the fine, he still failed to submit his comment.
Meanwhile, Atty. Centeno’s required submission of updated contact information for his counsel remained unfulfilled.

On June 23, 2005, the complainant submitted a manifestation which included updated addresses of Atty. Doroin and Atty. Centeno, along with a copy of a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mr. Juanito C. Perez to prosecute the case.
On July 27, 2005, the Court acknowledged the complainant’s compliance and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation within ninety (90) days.
The IBP issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing on October 3, 2005, with the explicit declaration that non-appearance would waive further participation.

At the October 26, 2005 hearing, only Mr. Juanito Perez, representing the complainant, appeared; respondents were directed to submit their comments within ten (10) days.
At the rescheduled hearing on November 30, 2005, absence of the respondents led to them being declared in default.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, on November 30, 2005, issued a report recommending disciplinary sanctions which initially called for disbarment of the respondent lawyers.

In a related Special Proceedings case concerning the estate of Dr. Eduardo Doroin, the complainant was allegedly deceived into signing an extrajudicial settlement and deed of partition.
Atty. Doroin was implicated for forging the complainant’s late father’s signature in a deed of sale related to property in Kingspoint Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City.
Atty. Hector Centeno, acting as notary, falsified the appearance of the deceased in the document and later absconded after posting bail in a criminal case for falsification of a public document.

The IBP Commission and subsequent court findings determined that the respondents violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The respondents’ conduct was shown to have caused “extreme and great damage” to the complainant.
Their failure to respond to the complaint and appear during disciplinary proceedings amounted to a flagrant disregard for lawful court orders and the oath of office.

The IBP Board of Governors modified the initial recommendation by suspending Atty. Doroin indefinitely rather than disbar him.
The Court, while agreeing with the IBP’s findings, modified the penalties specifically: Atty. Hector Centeno was disbarred due to the added gravity of falsification and criminal behavior, whereas Atty. Doroin was suspended indefinitely.

Whether the respondent lawyers violated their lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in deceitful and unlawful conduct.

The inquiry focused on the allegations of forgery, falsification, and non-compliance with court orders.
Whether their failure to file the required comments and appear at the disciplinary proceedings constituted sufficient grounds for disciplinary sanctions.

Whether the fraudulent acts committed in the extrajudicial settlement and the deed of sale, including the forgery of a signature and misrepresentation of facts, warrant the imposition of the grave penalty of disbarment.

The issue also involved examining the legality of the extrajudicial settlement in light of compulsory heirs’ rights.
The matter raised the question of whether a lawyer’s conduct that results in significant damage to the interests of a party justifies the imposition of severe disciplinary measures.

The propriety of the sanctions imposed given the contrasting circumstances of the respondent lawyers.

Whether an indefinite suspension versus disbarment is appropriate in view of the different degrees of their misconduct.
The decision evaluated the nature and extent of harm caused by each respondent's actions.