Case Summary (A.C. No. 5033)
Court Proceedings Timeline
On June 21, 1999, the Court's Second Division ordered the respondents to comment on the complaint within ten days. Respondents sought an extension, granted on October 4, 1999; however, they failed to comply. This noncompliance led to a series of orders from the Court, requiring respondents to show cause for their failure to respond and consequent penalties. By mid-2001, difficulties were encountered in serving notices, which compounded the issue of compliance by the respondents.
Complaints and Allegations
In her Affidavit-Complaint, Velasco claimed she was appointed as Administratrix in a special proceedings case concerning the estate of the late Dr. Eduardo Doroin. During this process, Respondent Atty. Doroin allegedly deceived Velasco into signing documents that unjustly favored other parties, including the deceased's paramour. The respondents purportedly misrepresented the legality of these documents, leading to significant financial loss for Velasco and involving alleged forgery of a deed by Atty. Centeno.
Investigation and Findings
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation and reported that the respondents failed to adequately respond or appear for hearings. This lack of participation and failure to contest the evidence presented led the Commission on Bar Discipline to recommend disbarment.
Legal Violations
The respondents were found to have violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that lawyers avoid unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct. The conduct of the respondents significantly harmed the complainant, establishing a breach of their professional duties and responsibilities.
Decision and Penalty
While the Board of Governors of the IBP initially recommended indefinite suspension rather than disbarment, the Court affirmed the findings of the IBP but modified the penalty, determining that Respondent Atty. Hector Centeno's actions warranted disbarment due to his involvement in criminal acts of forgery, along with his failure to engage appropriate
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 5033)
Case Overview
- This case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Mary Jane D. Velasco on March 31, 1999, against lawyers Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno, alleging forgery and falsification, which constitute malpractice.
- The complaint stems from alleged misconduct in the handling of an estate settlement case involving the late Eduardo Doroin.
Procedural Background
- On June 21, 1999, the Court's Second Division mandated the respondent lawyers to comment on the complaint within ten days.
- A motion for an extension to file the comment was submitted by the respondents on August 24, 1999, which was granted by the Court on October 4, 1999, with a warning against further extensions.
- The respondents failed to file their comment, prompting the Court on June 20, 2001, to order them to show cause for their non-compliance.
- Attempts to serve this order were unsuccessful, leading to further complications regarding the respondents' compliance with Court directives.
Complainant's Allegations
- Mary Jane D. Velasco claimed she was deceived into signing an Extrajudicial Settlement and Deed of Partition, which unfairly allocated the estate of her deceased father,