A.C. No. 11795 - Rosca vs. Delmendo

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11795)

Factual Background

In October 2015, Atty. Michael John C. Delmendo asked brokers Joycelyn Pameron and Evelyn Salor whether they knew a person who could extend a loan secured by a parcel of land. He gave them a photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-240036, represented that the title was subject to a pending reconstitution, and said the order of reconstitution was about to be released and forwarded to the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. The property had been sold by Jufraida C. Jamero to Emma Ledonio, who executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of her son, Ramon Ledonio.

Loan Arrangement and Documents

Joycelyn and Evelyn approached Gilda J. Rosca, who agreed to finance the reconstitution after meeting Atty. Delmendo at the Land Registration Authority office. Atty. Delmendo introduced himself as a legal official and assured the authenticity of the transaction. The parties agreed that, upon release of the reconstituted title, a real estate mortgage would secure a loan of PHP 11,200,000.00. A "Warranty and Undertaking on the Loan Obtained from Gilda J Rosca" was executed, signed by Ramon as borrower and by Atty. Delmendo as guarantor. Gilda issued Check No. 0007151465 payable to Atty. Delmendo in the amount of PHP 3,000,000.00, which he encashed, and she personally delivered additional cash amounting to PHP 4,800,000.00 to him or his associates.

Discovery of Spurious Documents and Complaint

When the reconstituted title was not released within the promised 30 working days, Gilda inquired repeatedly by text message. Atty. Delmendo provided a photocopy of an unsigned Order dated April 12, 2016 and a photocopy of a Report dated October 13, 2015 that purportedly bore the approval of the LRA Administrator. Gilda learned from the LRA Records Section that the Report and Order were spurious and that the tax declaration in Jufraida's name did not exist. Efforts to reach Atty. Delmendo thereafter were unsuccessful. Aggrieved, Gilda lodged a Complaint-Affidavit and later filed criminal and administrative complaints, including estafa through falsification and violations of RA 6713 and RA 3019.

Respondent’s Denial and Alternate Account

In his Comment, Atty. Delmendo denied the charged acts. He asserted he was introduced as the investigating officer assigned to the reconstitution, not as Head of the Legal Affairs Department. He claimed the reconstitution documents had been in the public records since 1992. He denied involvement in the loan agreement and alleged that Ramon actually received the PHP 4,800,000.00, while the PHP 3,000,000.00 was received by him from Evelyn as a personal loan.

Criminal and Administrative Proceedings Prior to the Instant Case

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City recommended filing an Information for estafa through falsification against Atty. Delmendo and Ramon on May 4, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Ombudsman found probable cause and adjudged Atty. Delmendo guilty of violating Section 7(d) of RA 6713 and grave misconduct, ordering dismissal from service with accessory penalties; the complaint against Ramon was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The LRA Inspection and Investigating Division later confirmed that the reconstitution had been assigned to Atty. Delmendo, but no issuances supporting the reconstitution were located in the case records.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline conducted an inquiry and, through an Investigating Commissioner, recommended disbarment of Atty. Delmendo for soliciting money to facilitate the release of a reconstituted title. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2023-01-14, approved and adopted the IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation to impose disbarment for grave violations of Rule 1.01, Rule 6.2, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

Evidentiary Findings by the Court

The Court found ample evidence to meet the substantial-evidence standard. The record showed that Atty. Delmendo possessed and used spurious documents, including a photocopied Report and an unsigned Order, to create the appearance that he had facilitated the reconstitution process. Testimony of Joycelyn and Evelyn corroborated Gilda's account that Atty. Delmendo presented an approved Report and assured the authenticity of the transaction. The LRA letter confirmed that the Report did not form part of the case record. Documentary proof included Check No. 0007151465 showing encashment of PHP 3,000,000.00 and an Acknowledgement Receipt bearing Atty. Delmendo's signature for the receipt of PHP 4,800,000.00.

Legal Issues Presented

The principal legal issues were whether Atty. Delmendo engaged in falsification of official documents and solicited bribe money in relation to a transaction requiring the approval of his office, thereby violating the ethical and professional standards applicable to lawyers in government service, and what disciplinary sanction should follow under the CPRA and related authorities.

Application of the CPRA and Doctrinal Standards

The Court applied the CPRA, which it adopted on April 11, 2023 and made effective on May 29, 2023, noting that the CPRA governs ongoing disciplinary cases unless retroactive application would be impractical or unjust. The Court held that falsification of documents and bribery are serious offenses under Canon VI, Sections 33(b) and 33(c) of the CPRA, and that a respondent guilty of a serious offense may be sanctioned with disbarment under Canon VI, Section 37(a). The Court found that Atty. Delmendo violated multiple provisions of Canon II of the CPRA, including Sections 1, 2, 5, 11, and 15, and the duties of government lawyers under Sections 28 and 30.

Court’s Reasoning on Falsification and Bribery

The Court reasoned that Atty. Delmendo's possession and use of a spurious Report and an unsigned Order, combined with his assurances and his signature as guarantor in the warranty, established a presumption of authorship or complicity in falsification. The text messages between Gilda and Atty. Delmendo showed that she relied on his assurances and that the solicited sums were intended to secure favorable action in the reconstitution process. The Court rejected Atty. Delmendo's denial as frivolous and unsupported, concluding that absent a satisfactory explanation the presumption of authorship of the forged Report stood against him. The Court further concluded that the warranty and the solicitation of money reflected bribery and an improper claim of influence in contravention of Canon II, Section 15 and Sections 28 an

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11795)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Gilda J. Rosca filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Atty. Michael John C. Delmendo for alleged falsification, bribery, estafa through falsification, and conduct unbecoming a public official and dishonesty.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City recommended the filing of an information for estafa through falsification against Respondent and Ramon.
The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Respondent with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 and convicted him of the latter and of grave misconduct.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended disbarment, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation.
The Supreme Court, en banc, resolved the disbarment complaint and issued the decision ordering the ultimate disciplinary sanction.

Key Facts

In October 2015, Respondent asked brokers Joycelyn Pameron and Evelyn Salor if they knew someone who could extend a loan secured by a good land and furnished them a photocopy of TCT No. T-240036 registered in the name of Jufraida C. Jamero.
Respondent represented that the disputed TCT was the subject of a pending reconstitution and that the order of reconstitution was about to be released to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Joycelyn and Evelyn brought Gilda J. Rosca to the LRA office where Respondent introduced himself and assured the authenticity of the transaction and promised to return the money if the reconstituted title was not released within thirty working days.
The parties agreed that upon release of the reconstituted title a real estate mortgage would secure a loan of PHP 11,200,000, and a “Warranty and Undertaking on the Loan Obtained from Gilda J Rosca” was executed with Ramon as borrower and Respondent as guarantor.
Gilda J. Rosca issued Check No. 0007151465 payable to Respondent for PHP 3,000,000, which Respondent encashed, and she later delivered additional cash amounting to PHP 4,800,000 to Respondent.
Respondent furnished a photocopy of a Report dated October 13, 2015 signed by Administrator Eulalio C. Diaz and later an unsigned Order dated April 12, 2016, but the Records Section advised that both documents were spurious and not part of the case record.

Charges and Allegations

The Complaint alleged violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713, violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and commission of Estafa through Falsification.
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Respondent with grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
The IBP-CBD charged Respondent with grave violations of the rules referenced by the IBP Board, namely violations of Rule 1.01, Rule 6.2, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Conduct as adopted in its proceedings.

Evidence

The record contained a photocopy of a Report and a photocopy of an u