Case Summary (G.R. No. 173844)
Procedural History and Defaults
The complainant filed a disbarment complaint alleging forgery and falsification by the respondent lawyers. The Supreme Court’s Second Division required respondents to comment within ten days but respondents failed to file the comment despite an extension. The Court issued show-cause orders and imposed fines (including a fine against Atty. Charlie Doroin that was later paid), and directed the complainant to provide correct addresses for certain counsel. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was later referred the case for investigation and report. Respondents repeatedly failed to file comments or appear at IBP proceedings; notices sent to them were returned with notations indicating they had moved, and the IBP declared the respondents in default. The Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a report and recommendation, and the IBP Board of Governors considered and modified the recommended penalty before transmitting the matter to the Court.
Core Allegations and Factual Findings Presented
The complainant alleged that she had been appointed administratrix in a special proceedings case involving the estate of the late Eduardo Doroin, and that respondents, acting as collaborating counsel for an oppositor, deceived the complainant into signing an extrajudicial settlement and partition that disadvantaged her and omitted the legal spouse’s share. The complaint alleges that respondent Atty. Doroin procured or caused the forging of the deceased’s signature on a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying a lot in Kingspoint Subdivision to a third party and that respondent Atty. Centeno, a notary public, notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale by making it appear that the deceased had personally appeared before him after the date of death. The record also notes that a criminal case for falsification of public document was filed against Atty. Centeno (Criminal Case No. 104869), that he pleaded not guilty at arraignment, and that he later failed to appear and jumped bail.
IBP Investigation, Findings and Recommendation
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, after mandatory conference/hearing notices and follow-up hearings at which respondents did not appear and were declared in default, found that respondents had violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in dishonest conduct that caused “extreme and great damage” to the complainant. The Commission recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission’s findings but modified the recommended penalty to indefinite suspension (instead of disbarment) for the respondents and transmitted its resolution and the Commission’s report to the Court.
Legal Standards and Burden of Proof Applied
The Court applied Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court reaffirmed the high ethical standards required of lawyers, citing the lawyer’s oath and precedent (e.g., Marcelo v. Javier) that require attorneys to uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession and that disciplinary action is proper where conduct renders an attorney unfit to practice. The record reiterates the established rule that the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings rests on the complainant and that guilt must ordinarily be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof; however, the Court also recognized that a respondent’s failure to answer a complaint and to appear at investigation hearings leaves the complainant’s allegations uncontroverted and may be treated as evidence of flouting lawful orders and a breach of the lawyer’s oath (as explained in Ngayan v. Tugade and cited in the record).
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court accepted the factual allegations in the complaint as uncontroverted given respondents’ default and non-appearance before the IBP and failure to file comments despite due notice and multiple opportunities. The Court observed that the alleged conduct—causing or participating in the forgery of a deed of sale and the notarization of a document that falsely purported a personal appearance by a deceased person—constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01. The Court further framed the misconduct in the context of succession law (Civil Code, Art. 887) and the proper procedure for extrajudicial settlement (Rules of Court, Rule 74), emphasizing that compulsory heirs, including a surviving spouse, cannot be deprived of their legitime by an extrajudicial settlement in which the spouse is not a party. The Court considered the gravity of the misconduct and the additional aggravating circumstance in Atty. Centeno’s case: the commission of a criminal offense (falsification of a public document) and subsequent absconding after posting bail, which the record identifies as a distinct and serious factor.
Disposition and Penalties Imposed
The Court agreed with the IBP’s findings of professional misconduct but differentiated the penalties for the two respondents based on the circumstances detailed in the record. Atty. Charlie Doroin was suspended indefinitely from the practice of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 173844)
Procedural Posture and Case Origin
- This is an En Banc decision reported at 582 Phil. 1, A.C. No. 5033, dated July 28, 2008, and captioned as shown in the title line.
- The case arose from a disbarment complaint filed by Mary Jane D. Velasco on March 31, 1999, against respondents Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno alleging forgery and falsification constitutive of malpractice.
- The primary issue presented: whether Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno are guilty of violating their lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility meriting disbarment.
Initial Court Actions and Notice to Respondents
- On June 21, 1999, the Court’s Second Division required the respondent lawyers to comment on the complaint within ten (10) days from notice.
- Respondents did not file the comment within the original period.
Motion for Extension and Court Warning
- On August 24, 1999, Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, counsel for respondents, filed a Motion for Extension requesting a 60-day extension from August 16, 1999 to file the comment.
- On October 4, 1999, the Court granted the extension but expressly warned that the extension “shall be the last and no further extension will be given.”
Continued Failure to File Comment; Show Cause Orders
- The respondent lawyers ultimately failed to file their comment after the extension.
- On June 20, 2001, the Court ordered the respondent lawyers and their counsel to show cause why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failing to file the required comment.
- Copies of the June 20, 2001 resolution were returned unserved for Atty. Alcid and Atty. Centeno with notations “party out/unknown at/party moved out” and “moved out,” respectively; Atty. Doroin received the resolution on July 27, 2001.
- On April 17, 2002, the Court required the complainant to submit the correct addresses of Atty. Alcid and Atty. Centeno. Atty. Charlie Doroin was fined Php 500.00 for failure to comply with the show cause resolution dated June 20, 2001 and was ordered to submit his comment.
Complainant’s Non‑Compliance and Escalation of Sanctions
- The complainant initially failed to comply with the directive to provide correct addresses.
- On July 23, 2003, the Court required the complainant to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with for the non‑compliance and ordered her to submit her compliance within ten (10) days from notice.
- The fine on Atty. Charlie Doroin was increased from Php 500.00 to Php 1,000.00 for his continued failure to file his comment; he was ordered to pay or suffer imprisonment of five (5) days and to submit his comment within ten (10) days from notice.
Subsequent Compliance by Atty. Doroin and Remaining Non‑Compliance
- In a report dated August 2, 2004, the Clerk of Court informed the Court that Atty. Doroin paid the Php 1,000.00 fine.
- Despite payment of the fine, Atty. Doroin still failed to submit the comment on the administrative complaint and did not comply with the April 17, 2002 show cause resolution by providing the correct addresses of Atty. Quintin P. Alcid and Atty. Hector Centeno.
Complainant’s Later Compliance and Referral to IBP
- In a Manifestation submitted June 23, 2005, the complainant provided the addresses of Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno and submitted a copy of a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mr. Juanito C. Perez to prosecute the case.
- On July 27, 2005, the Court noted the complainant’s compliance and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the record.
IBP Proceedings and Notices
- On October 3, 2005, the IBP through Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva Maala issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing scheduled for October 26, 2005, with the strict note that “non-appearance by any of the parties shall be deemed a waiver of their right to participate in further proceedings.”
- On October 26, 2005, only Mr. Juanito Perez (attorney‑in‑fact of the complainant) and his counsel Atty. Andres Villaruel, Jr. appeared. Because respondents had not filed their comment, they were directed to submit it within ten (10) days from receipt of notice; the hearing was reset to November 30, 2005.
- On November 30, 2005, again only the complainant’s attorney‑in‑fact and counsel appeared. Notices sent to respondents were returned to the Commission on Bar Discipline with the notation “RTS‑Moved.” As respondents had not filed their comment, they were declared in default.
Commission on Bar Discipline Report and Recommendation
- Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva Maala submitted a report and recommendation (Order dated November 30, 2005) which included the Commission on Bar Discipline’s findings and account of the facts as alleged in the Affidavit‑Complaint.
- The Commission found that respondents violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended disbarment of the respondent lawyers.
Factual Allegations as Presented in the Affidavit‑Complaint
- Complainant alleged she was appointed Administratrix in Special Proceedings Case No. Q‑96‑27628 before the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 87, entitled “In the matter of the Settlement of the Estate of the Late Eduardo Doroin, Monina E. Doroin, petitioner.”
- The deceased, Eduardo Doroin, died on 21 January 1996 in Papua New Guinea.
- In the Special Proceedings case, respondents were collaborating counsels for Oppositor Josephine Abarquez.
- Complainant alleged that on 21 March 1996 Atty. Doroin “fooled complainant by deceitful means” into signing an Extra‑Judicial Settlement and Deed of Partition allotting complainant Php 1,216,078.00, allotting Josephine Abarquez Php 7,296,468.00, and allotting three alleged illegitimate siblings similar sums, but assigning no share to complainant’s mother, the legal wife.
- To partially satisfy complainant’s share of Php 1,216,078.00, Atty. Doroin allegedly required her to sign a paper described as a Confirmation of Authority to Sell the property at Kingspoint subdivision, Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 34885.
- Complainant stated she intended to consult a lawyer regarding the legality of the Confirmation of Authority to Sell and did not sign it because her lawyer, Atty. Marapao, failed to confe