Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr.
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jose S. Ducat, Jr. filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. for gross misconduct. The case stemmed from respondent's alleged claim of ownership over a property covered by TCT No. M-3023, registered in the name of the complainant. Respondent claimed the property was verbally given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. Respondent also prepared a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Sr. in favor of respondent and/or Andres Canares, Jr., and another Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Jr. in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. The complainant alleged that Jose Ducat, Sr. was not the owner and that the signature of his wife, Maria Cabrido, on the first deed was forged by Jose Ducat, Sr. Complainant also denied executing the second deed, appearing before Atty. Crispulo Ducusin, receiving payment, or knowing Andres Canares, Jr. Respondent admitted that the P450,000.00 consideration in the second deed was fictitious. Procedural History: The Supreme Court rendered a Decision on August 14, 2000, finding respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. guilty of gross misconduct and suspending him from the practice of law for one year, with a directive to deliver TCT No. M-3023 to the complainant within sixty days, or face disbarment. The Petition: Respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. sought reconsideration of the Court's Decision.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. is guilty of gross misconduct. Whether the penalty imposed on respondent Atty. Villalon, Jr. should be reconsidered.
Ruling
The Court GRANTED the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and MODIFIED the Decision dated August 14, 2000. Respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. was suspended from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS only, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The directive to deliver TCT No. M-3023 to complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. was DELETED, as the delivery thereof had been accomplished as of July 8, 1997.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross misconduct: The Court found respondent Atty. Villalon, Jr. guilty of gross misconduct. The Investigating Commissioner's findings highlighted the straightforward testimony of the complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat, Sr., and the lack of any imputed ill motive. Respondent's defense that he considered himself the owner of the property based on a verbal 'giving' by Jose Ducat, Sr. was found to be hollow. The Court noted that Jose Ducat, Jr. was the registered owner, and Jose Ducat, Sr. could not have validly given the property without authorization. Furthermore, respondent, as a lawyer, knew or ought to have known that conveyance of real property must be in writing, making the oral 'giving' unbelievable. The Deed of Sale prepared by respondent, allegedly from Jose Ducat, Sr., was of dubious character because Jose Ducat, Sr. was not the owner, and respondent admitted that Jose Ducat, Sr. had affixed his wife's signature, which constitutes forgery. Respondent should have treated this document as worthless. Similarly, the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly from Jose Ducat, Jr. was also of questionable character, as Jose Ducat, Jr. denied executing it, appearing before the notary, or receiving payment. Respondent admitted that the stated consideration of P450,000.00 was fictitious, which he knew or ought to have known was an irregularity. These acts demonstrated a failure to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and a violation of his oath to do no falsehood. On the reconsideration of the penalty: The Court agreed to reduce the penalty imposed on respondent Atty. Villalon, Jr. This reconsideration was based on several factors, including that this was the first administrative complaint against respondent, his prior service as President of the IBP-Manila 1 Chapter, and, most importantly, that respondent Atty. Villalon had already returned the owner's duplicate of TCT No. M-3023 to the complainant, rendering the directive to deliver the TCT moot and unnecessary, thus warranting a modification of the penalty.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer found guilty of gross misconduct may have the penalty reduced upon reconsideration if the complainant acknowledges receipt of the property in dispute, and if it is the lawyer's first and only administrative complaint.