Julian v. Salenda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Pablo V. Julian and Irene Basilio-Julian filed a letter-complaint against Attorneys Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda and Belen E. Tuy. The Julian spouses alleged that Attorney Tuy drafted a Deed of Absolute Sale for their property, which was presented to them for signature while the purchase price was left blank. They refused to sign until they consulted Attorney Respicio-Salenda. Upon consultation, Attorney Respicio-Salenda allegedly assured them that everything was all right, and they were prevailed upon to sign. They further alleged that Attorney Respicio-Salenda affixed her signature as a witness, along with Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes, though another alleged witness, Julieta Respicio, was not present. Attorney Tuy then took all copies. The following morning, Attorney Respicio-Salenda's secretary, Julieta A. Respicio, allegedly docketed the document and affixed her signature despite not being present during the signing. The Julian spouses later discovered that the consideration post-inserted was P18,000.00 instead of their agreed P36,000.00. The Original Certificate of Title was also allegedly surreptitiously taken. Attorney Tuy offered a Time Certificate of Deposit instead of cash for the initial payment, and later altered the agreement regarding installment payments. Procedural History: The Julian spouses, represented by Attorney Respicio-Salenda, filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 6444-VI) seeking reformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The trial court dismissed their complaint, and a motion for reconsideration was denied. The Julian spouses alleged that Attorney Respicio-Salenda's failure to testify in their behalf led to the adverse decision. They also claimed she asked for money to be given to the judge. The Petition: The Julian spouses filed a complaint for disbarment against Attorneys Respicio-Salenda and Tuy, alleging deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Attorney Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda committed deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office. Whether respondent Attorney Belen E. Tuy committed deceit and gross misconduct. Whether respondent Attorney Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda was negligent as a notary public. Whether respondent Attorney Belen E. Tuy's failure to file an answer warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint against Attorney Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda, reprimanding her for negligence as a notary public with a warning. The complaint against Attorney Belen E. Tuy was sustained, and she was suspended from the practice of law until further orders.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disbarment complaint against Attorney Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda regarding deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct: The Court found no justifiable reason to mete out the sanction prayed for. It noted that Attorney Respicio-Salenda had scrutinized the Deed of Absolute Sale and explained its contents to the Julian spouses. She brought to their attention the blank space for the purchase price and ascertained their agreed consideration. The Court found that the Julian spouses were induced to sign by the assurances of Attorney Tuy and Wellington Reyes, not by Attorney Respicio-Salenda's actions. Her advice not to sign was disregarded by the spouses. Her decision not to testify was within her discretion. The money received was for professional fees and litigation costs, and the insinuations of bribery were unfounded. On the disbarment complaint against Attorney Belen E. Tuy regarding deceit and gross misconduct: Attorney Tuy failed to file an answer to the complaint for disbarment despite being granted multiple extensions. The Court found this conduct inexcusable. On the issue of Attorney Ameurfina Respicio-Salenda's negligence as a notary public: The Court noted her admission of signing the deed as notary despite its incompleteness, stating she should have awaited the insertion of the purchase price. For this negligence, she was reprimanded and warned. On the issue of whether Attorney Belen E. Tuy's failure to file an answer warrants disciplinary action: The Court found Attorney Tuy's failure to file an answer inexcusable and, accordingly, suspended her from the practice of law until further orders.
Main Doctrine
Attorneys are subject to disciplinary action for deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. Negligence in the performance of duties as a notary public warrants reprimand. Failure to file an answer to a disbarment complaint despite extensions may result in suspension from the practice of law.