A.C. No. 5161 - Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5161)

Properties Involved

Three parcels were central to the dispute: (a) one-half of Lot 1586, San Francisco de Malabon Estate (approx. 43,908 sq.m., TCT No. T-6203/RT-19151); (b) Lot 1603, San Francisco de Malabon Estate (approx. 16,073 sq.m., TCT No. T-6425/RT-7688); and (c) Lot 1605, San Francisco de Malabon Estate (approx. 22,131 sq.m., TCT No. T-1869). Each lot was later the subject of transfers and sales to Antel Holdings, Inc., with proceeds received by particular siblings.

Core Allegations by Complainant

The complainant alleged that Atty. Torres: (1) participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against false testimony and an extrajudicial settlement dated 11 November 1986 that purported to make only Felicisima and Miriam heirs and thereby facilitated transfer of Lot 1586; (2) participated in or acquiesced to the forgery of the complainant’s signature on an alleged extrajudicial settlement dated 17 March 1995 affecting Lot 1603, presented that forged document to the Register of Deeds to effect transfer to Felicisima and Marcelina, and facilitated sale proceeds misappropriated by them; (3) offered gross misrepresentations and false testimony in LRC Rec. No. 5964 (petition for judicial reconstitution of TCT No. T-1869 covering Lot 1605) to obtain a reconstituted title in the names of Marcelina and Felicisima, which enabled sale of Lot 1605 to Antel Holdings, Inc.; and (4) misrepresented to the buyer (through a Mrs. Ong) that the reconstitution order would be released within a month to secure early release of sale proceeds, even while knowing reconstitution evidence was presented much later; additionally he used Philippine National Bank stationery in requests to facilitate release.

Specific Misconducts Alleged and Evidentiary Points

The 11 November 1986 extrajudicial settlement omitted other compulsory heirs, yet Atty. Torres presented it for transfer of Lot 1586.
Marcelina admitted signing the complainant’s name on the 17 March 1995 instrument for Lot 1603; forging the complainant’s signature constituted falsification of a public document under the Penal Code provisions cited in the record. Atty. Torres prepared transfer documents for Lot 1603 and presented the forged instrument to the Registry of Deeds.
In LRC Rec. No. 5964 (reconstitution of TCT No. T-1869), Marcelina testified that she and Felicisima were the only children; transcript excerpts show the respondent inquiring and the witness answering falsely. An Affidavit of Loss offered in support was notarized by the respondent; the affiant later admitted she never possessed the title and thus the affidavit contained a false statement.
A letter dated 20 November 1996 from Atty. Torres to Mrs. Ong requested release of 50% of balance for Lot 1605’s sale on the basis that the reconstitution order would be released imminently, yet record shows evidence was only presented on 12 August 1997.

Procedural History — Administrative Referral and IBP Proceedings

The complaint-affidavit was filed with the Supreme Court on 22 October 1999. On 14 June 2000, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, after hearings, found violations of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but reduced the recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for six years.

Respondent’s Defenses

Atty. Torres denied taking advantage of his profession to deprive co-heirs. He contended: he was unaware of malfeasance in the 11 November 1986 settlement and believed his wife and the other sister were not motivated solely by profit; he disclaimed involvement in executing the 17 March 1995 instrument for Lot 1603 and asserted good faith belief that siblings had agreed on disposition of the lot; his role in LRC Rec. No. 5964 was counsel for Marcelina and Felicisima, and any false testimony by Marcelina was a mere oversight; his signature of conformity was pro forma because the property was paraphernal to his wife and Marcelina; assurances about the reconstitution order were attributed to the Clerk of Court and petitions for reconstitution are ordinarily uncontested and routinely granted; finally, he characterized the complainant’s actions as harassment by multiple suits.

Supreme Court’s Findings of Fact

The Court accepted the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s factual findings. It found that: the 11 November 1986 extrajudicial settlement concealed the existence of other compulsory heirs and was nonetheless presented by the respondent to the Register of Deeds for transfer; Marcelina admitted forging the complainant’s signature in the 17 March 1995 instrument and the respondent was consulted regarding that falsification and prepared documents for the transfer of Lot 1603; the reconstitution petition named only two siblings despite six heirs, the respondent elicited and allowed false testimony in court that Marcelina and Felicisima were sole heirs, and the respondent offered in evidence a notarized Affidavit of Loss that Marcelina later admitted was false; the November 1996 letter to Mrs. Ong contained misleading information that facilitated premature release of sale proceeds.

Violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility

Under the 1987 Constitution (as the controlling fundamental law for decisions after 1990) and the Code of Professional Responsibility cited in the record, the Court emphasized the lawyer’s oath and the following provisions: Canon 1 (Rule 1.01 — prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; Rule 1.02 — prohibition against counseling or abetting law-defying activities), Canon 7 (Rule 7.03 — prohibition against conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice), and Canon 10 (Rule 10.01 — duty of candor to the court; prohibition against falsehood or allowing the court to be misled). The Court held that respondent’s conduct—presenting or using falsified instruments, permitting and offering false testimony, preparing and presenting documents that misled registries and the court, and misrepresenting the state of reconstitution proceedings to secure funds—constituted breaches of the oath and these Canons and Rules.

Legal Characterization of Wrongful Acts

The Court noted that the alleged acts implicated penal provisions cited in the record (Arts. 171, 172, 182, 184 of the Revised Penal Code as referenced) for falsification and false testimony; it also characterized respondent’s conduct as deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct within the meaning of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes disbarment or suspension for deceit, malpractice, oth

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5161)

Court and Citation

Reported as 471 Phil. 1, En Banc, A.C. No. 5161, decided April 14, 2004.
Resolution per curiam of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Case originated from a Complaint‑Affidavit filed with the Supreme Court on 22 October 1999 (Rollo, pp. 1–4).

Parties

Complainant: Isidra Ting‑Dumali, one of six children and heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting.
Respondent: Atty. Rolando S. Torres, husband of respondent‑sister Felicisima T. Torres, and an employee of the Philippine National Bank (as stated in the record).
Other family members identified as heirs: Marcelina T. Rivera; Miriam T. Saria; Felicisima T. Torres (respondent’s wife); Vicente Ting, Jr.; and Eliseo Ting.

Properties at Issue (as described in the record)

One half of Lot 1586 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate — approximately 43,908 sq. m. — covered at the time by TCT No. (T‑6203) RT‑19151, Registry of Deeds of Cavite.
Lot 1603 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate — approximately 16,073 sq. m. — covered at the time by TCT No. (T‑6425) RT‑7688, Registry of Deeds of Cavite.
Lot 1605 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate — approximately 22,131 sq. m. — covered at the time by TCT No. T‑1869, Registry of Deeds of Cavite.

Complaint: Summary of Allegations by Isidra Ting‑Dumali

General allegation: Respondent abused his professional position and family relationship to deprive complainant and certain co‑heirs of their lawful shares of estate, engaging in or consenting to illegal, unlawful, and immoral acts in violation of his oath and the canons of legal and judicial ethics.
Specific allegation regarding Lot 1586:
- Respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and sister‑in‑law Miriam in an Extrajudicial Deed of Settlement dated 11 November 1986, wherein they purported to be sole heirs of the decedents and adjudicated the lot between themselves.
- Respondent presented that 11 November 1986 deed to the Register of Deeds of Cavite to transfer title to his wife and Miriam.
- The lot was later sold to Antel Holdings, Inc. for P1,195,400, with payment received by Felicisima and Miriam.
Specific allegation regarding Lot 1603:
- Respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against the forgery of complainant’s signature in an Extrajudicial Deed of Settlement dated 17 March 1995, despite knowledge that complainant was in Italy as an overseas contract worker at that time.
- Respondent presented the allegedly falsified document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite to transfer title in favor of his wife Felicisima and sister‑in‑law Marcelina to enable sale to Antel Holdings, Inc.; payment was received and misappropriated by Felicisima and Marcelina.
Specific allegation regarding Lot 1605 and reconstitution proceedings (LRC Rec. No. 5964):
- In the petition filed 24 October 1995 by Marcelina and Felicisima for judicial reconstitution of TCT No. T‑1869, respondent made gross misrepresentation and offered false testimony that Marcelina and Felicisima were the only children/heirs of the decedents to secure a new title in their names.
- With the reconstituted title, and with respondent’s express conformity, Lot 1605 was sold to Antel Holdings, Inc. for P2,213,100, with partial payment received during proceedings and profits realized to the exclusion of other siblings.
Additional allegation regarding payment release for Lot 1605:
- On 20 November 1996 respondent allegedly misrepresented to a buyer (through Mrs. Ong) that the order of reconstitution would be released within a month so as to induce release of full payment for Lot 1605, while knowing such was impossible because respondent presented evidence only on 12 August 1997.
- To facilitate release, respondent used stationery of the Philippine National Bank, of which he was an employee.

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

General denial of allegations and assertion that he did not use his profession to deprive co‑heirs of the estate.
Regarding Lot 1586: Asserts Felicisima and Miriam were not motivated solely by profit; denies culpability.
Regarding Lot 1603: Denies participation in execution of the 17 March 1995 deed; claims he believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had agreed on disposition; asserts any affixing of complainant’s signature (if it occurred) was done in good faith.
Regarding Lot 1605 reconstitution (LRC Rec. No. 5964):
- Admits he was counsel for Marcelina Ting Rivera, et al., in the reconstitution case but claims any false testimony by Marcelina was an oversight and his conformity to the sale was pro forma because the property was paraphernal property of Marcelina and his wife.
- Claims the November 1996 assurance as to release of reconstitution order was made by the Clerk of Court, Mr. Rosauro Morabe, and that reconstitution petitions are usually uncontested and granted.
Asserts complainant’s intent to harass by filing multiple actions (this administrative case plus Civil Case No. TM‑855 and a criminal case).

Complainant’s Reply and Additional Factual Assertions

Denies existence of a toka (verbal will) allegedly invoked to justify exclusion of heirs, citing circumstances: sudden death of mother in 1967; some siblings minors at the time; a 5 February 2000 letter by Eliseo denying any toka.
Asserts respondent was not merely passive but, as he admitted, the administrator of the Ting spouses’ properties.

IBP Investigation, Report and Recommendation

On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation (Rollo, p. 209).
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted hearings and concluded respondent’s acts violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Commissioner San Juan recommended disbarment (per Report and Recommendation; Rollo, unpaginated).
On 21 June 2003 the IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XV‑2003‑333, approved and adopted the Commissioner’s report but reduced the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for six years (Notice of Resolution signed by Jaime M. Vibar, National Secretary, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Board of Governors; Rollo, unpaginated).

Supreme Court’s Findings of Fact (as stated in the Resolution)

The 11 November 1986 Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Exhibit "L") recited that Felicisima and Miriam were children of Julita Reynante and adjudicated Lot No. 1586 to them alone, thereby concealing other compulsory heirs.
Respondent, being married to complainant’s sis