Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 1092)
Factual Background
The complainant asserted that the respondent’s change of name was contrary to law because it was supposedly effected without any authority from the courts. The respondent, when required to answer, categorically denied that he had used an alias at any time and maintained that he had not violated Republic Act No. 6085, nor committed falsification of public documents.
The respondent explained that the surname Antonio was also included in his birth certificate. He submitted documentary evidence consisting of a photostatic copy of his birth certificate, his educational records (including a diploma from Masbate High School in 1953, certificates from the University of the East in 1956 and 1961, and an official transcript of record), and certifications reflecting his official dealings, including his bar admission in 1962. In all these annexes, the surname used was Antonio, consistent with his account that he had always used his correct surname in public and private transactions. He further explained that the birth certificate used the nickname Paquito rather than his correct appellation Francisco, while preserving the correctness of the surname.
The respondent’s legal position was that no court order was required because the change of surname amounted to the correction of errors in school records, and that the requirement of a court order for a change or correction of entry must relate to entries in the civil register.
Procedural History and Referral to the Solicitor General
The respondent invoked a prior matter involving the same parties and based on the same evidence. He referred to Administrative Case No. 848, which, according to him, had been filed by the same complainant and dismissed by resolution dated September 30, 1971. That earlier complaint had sought dismissal, and the prayer had been granted.
After a reply was filed by the complainant, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Solicitor General’s Report
In the Report of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, submitted on July 18, 1983, the Solicitor General characterized the present administrative complaint as a second disbarment case filed by the same complainant against the same respondent. The earlier complaint, as related in the report, had alleged that the respondent was a Chinese citizen and thus disqualified to be a member of the bar; that case was dismissed on September 30, 1971.
The report further described additional circumstances suggesting the complainant’s pattern of litigation. It stated that the respondent was accused of violating Commonwealth Act No. 142 before the City Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. E-148817, but that case was dismissed by Judge Antonio Padua Paredes on June 4, 1974. The report noted that the principal prosecution witness was the complainant himself, and that the complainant had been responsible for filing a subsequent Criminal Case No. 307 before the Court of First Instance of Masbate based on the same alleged violation. That subsequent criminal case resulted in the filing of a motion to quash, which the Court of First Instance of Masbate had granted on August 5, 1974.
The Solicitor General also addressed the complainant’s motive by pointing out that the complainant and respondent had been involved in criminal matters where the complainant was the accused and the respondent acted as private prosecutor for falsification of public documents, leading to complainant’s conviction. It likewise noted that, in another situation where the complainant was the adverse party, the respondent had served as defense counsel.
Against this background, the Solicitor General concluded that there was no basis for proceeding against the respondent and recommended dismissal of the complaint. The report additionally proposed that the complainant be admonished due to the apparent lack of good faith in bringing the charge.
The Parties’ Contentions
The complainant’s central contention remained that the respondent’s change of name violated law because it allegedly lacked court authority and was therefore improper under Republic Act No. 6085, which generally prohibits the use of a name different from that registered at birth or duly authorized by a competent court.
The respondent’s defense was anchored on denial of the alleged unlawful conduct and on the assertion that his use of Francisco G. Antonio reflected the correct name consistent with documentary evidence. He also argued that the change involved corrections attributable to school records rather than an unauthorized alteration of civil registry entries requiring court action, and he pointed to his prior dismissal under Administrative Case No. 848 as evidence that the present complaint was being repeated using the same factual basis.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint against the respondent. It held that the charge was unfounded and treated it as an exercise of judicial process motivated by ill-will and resentment.
The Court further found that the complaint was the second attempt by the complainant, and that such persistence showed a lack of good faith. It emphasized that complainant’s use of the judicial process as an instrument of retaliation reflected adversely on the rule of law. The Court therefore considered admonition but deemed it insufficiently responsive to the complainant’s irresponsible conduct.
Accordingly, while the complaint was dismissed, the Court censured Vicente Lim. The Court also stated that the respondent may sue the complainant for damages. The Court’s decision carried the concurrence of Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, with Makasiar concurring and De Castro on sick leave.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning focused on the absence of a legal basis to proceed against the respondent. It relied substantially on the Solicitor General’s findings that the complaint lacked merit and that the complainant had not acted in good faith.
The Court credited the narrative showing that the respondent had consi
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 1092)
- The complaint charged Attorney Francisco G. Antonio, a member of the bar, with changing his name without court authority.
- The complainant sought disciplinary action on the ground that respondent’s name change was contrary to Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by Republic Act No. 6085.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Vicente Lim filed a disbarment-type administrative complaint against Attorney Francisco G. Antonio.
- Attorney Francisco G. Antonio was required to answer and submitted an answer with documentary annexes.
- A reply was required from Vicente Lim and was submitted.
- The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- The Solicitor General submitted a report dated July 18, 1983, recommending dismissal.
- The Court dismissed the complaint and separately imposed a disciplinary sanction upon the complainant.
Key Factual Allegations
- The charge was that respondent changed his name from “Paquito Lim Antonio Clemente”, as appearing in his birth certificate, to “Francisco G. Antonio.”
- The complainant alleged that respondent’s act violated the statutory prohibition against using a name different from the one registered at birth, absent authorization by a competent court.
- Respondent denied any violation and asserted that he had not used an alias.
- Respondent explained that his birth certificate used the nickname “Paquito” rather than his correct appellation, while his surname and correct family name still matched “Antonio.”
- Respondent maintained that he had consistently used Francisco from birth in his dealings, public and private.
Respondent’s Defense Evidence
- Respondent submitted a photostatic copy of his birth certificate showing that the surname Antonio was included.
- Respondent attached his diploma from Masbate High School in 1953.
- Respondent attached his certificates of conferment: Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of the East in 1956 and Bachelor of Laws from the University of the East in 1961.
- Respondent submitted his official transcript of record from the University of the East.
- Respondent presented a certification from the Board of Examiners of the Bureau of Civil Service as a registered Certified Public Accountant dated July 22, 1957.
- Respondent presented a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court showing his admission to the bar in 1962.
- Respondent contended that these documents consistently used the surname Antonio.
Prior Related Proceedings
- Respondent relied on a previous administrative case, Administrative Case No. 848, filed by the same complainant against the same respondent.
- Respondent asserted that the earlier case was based on the same evidence and was dismissed by the Court in a resolution dated September 30, 1971.
- Respondent argued that the court order requirement did not apply because the change concerned correction of errors in school records, and correction would be relevant only to what appears in the civil register.
- The Solicitor General’s report treated the instant filing as a second attempt for disbarment by the same complainant against the same respondent.
Statutory Framework
- The governing rule prohibiting name variation was Section 1, Republic Act No. 6085 (1969) amending Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142 (1936).
- The statute provided that, except for a pseudonym for specified entertainment or athletic purposes, “no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth” or with which he was baptized for the first time, or, for an alien, registered upon entry.
- The statute allowed use of a substitute name only if authorized by a competent court.
- The statute required that the name comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames.