Monzon v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainant Saturnino S. Monzon charged respondent Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes with violating his attorney's oath by allegedly doing falsehood and appearing as counsel without authority. The charges stemmed from a deed of absolute sale dated March 1, 1965, executed by Catalino Fausto, covering his share in conjugal property. This deed was ratified by respondent Reyes, but lacked signatures of the vendor and vendee. Respondent later filed a petition for its approval. Catalino Fausto died, and his second wife, Ponciana Francisco Fausto, initiated intestate proceedings, with respondent as her counsel. The petition for approval of the deed of sale was granted. Later, Fe Fausto-Monzon, an heir, died, and her spouse, the complainant, substituted for her. Complainant filed a Petition for Relief alleging the missing signatures, which was dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. 2. Procedural History: The legality of the deed of sale was raised before the Court of Appeals (CA-GR. No. 42375). The CA, in its decision, found the claim of missing signatures to be without factual basis, stating that the deed bore the signature of Catalino Fausto and the vendee, Gertrudes Francisco, as well as witnesses, and that the original documents were filed with the Register of Deeds. Subsequently, complainant filed a criminal complaint for falsification against respondent, which was dismissed. Complainant then filed the present disbarment complaint with the Supreme Court, focusing on alleged false statements made by respondent in his pleadings before the CA and the City Fiscal's Office, specifically regarding the filing of the original deed of sale with the Register of Deeds. 3. The Petition: The disbarment complaint alleged two main charges: (1) violation of the attorney's oath for making falsehoods in court, specifically by falsely stating in a pleading before the Court of Appeals that the original deed of sale was filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila when only a certified true copy was filed; and (2) corruptly or willfully appearing as attorney for Catalino Fausto without proper authority.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes violated his attorney's oath by making false statements in his pleadings before the Court of Appeals regarding the filing of the original deed of sale with the Register of Deeds. Whether respondent Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes corruptly or willfully appeared as attorney for Catalino Fausto without proper authority.
Ruling
The Court denied the prayer for disbarment on the first charge but reprimanded respondent for being reckless in making statements of fact in his pleadings and admonished him that a repetition of such offense would be dealt with more severely. The second charge was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that respondent did make misrepresentations in his Answer to Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, stating that the "originals of these sales" were filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila. However, a certification from the Register of Deeds indicated that only a "certified copy or at most a carbon copy" was filed, and it might have been withdrawn. The Court noted respondent's inconsistent statements regarding what he actually filed (original, duplicate original, or certified true copy). Despite these inconsistencies, the Court concluded that respondent's conduct was "careless or reckless" rather than deceitful or malicious, and that no substantial prejudice was caused to the complainant or the forum. Therefore, while censurable for falling short of the exacting standard of candor and fairness required of lawyers (Canon 22, Canons of Professional Ethics), the conduct did not justify disbarment. On Issue 2: The charge that respondent corruptly or willfully appeared as attorney for Catalino Fausto without authority was dismissed. Complainant relied on the testimony of Atty. Jorge V. Jazmines, who stated he was Catalino Fausto's counsel and was never replaced by respondent. However, Atty. Jazmines also testified that respondent "has also intervened" in the intestate proceedings of Ramona Roño and had participated in other transactions of Catalino Fausto's family. The Court reasoned that a client may have multiple lawyers, and one does not necessarily replace the other. The evidence showed that respondent and Atty. Jazmines likely coordinated and collaborated in handling the legal problems of Catalino Fausto and his family. Thus, the charge of unauthorized appearance lacked merit.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that while lawyers are bound by the attorney's oath to do no falsehood, not every misstatement in a pleading warrants disbarment. The charge of corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority also requires proof of such intent. In this case, the respondent's misstatements were characterized as careless and reckless rather than deceitful, and the charge of unauthorized appearance was dismissed due to evidence of collaboration with another counsel. Consequently, the respondent was reprimanded for the former and absolved of the latter.