Eustaquio v. Rimorin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 30, 1979, spouses Piorillo and Alicia Rubis acquired title to a parcel of land in Dizon Subdivision, Baguio City. On June 22, 1991, while the spouses were residing in the United States (US), respondent Atty. Rex C. Rimorin executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly notarized in Baguio City, falsely claiming the spouses appeared before the notary. Using this spurious SPA, Rimorin executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on July 3, 1991, in favor of the So Hu spouses. In November 1997, Alicia Rubis visited the Philippines and, unaware of the prior sale, was induced by Rimorin to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which appeared to authorize a sale but was actually a deceptive attempt to retroactively validate the 1991 fraudulent transaction. Procedural History: Complainants Emiliana Eustaquio and the Rubis spouses filed a verified complaint for grave misconduct against Rimorin on June 17, 1999. The Supreme Court (SC) directed Rimorin to comment, but notices were returned with the notation that he was 'abroad.' The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Despite multiple orders from the IBP Investigating Commissioner to file a verified answer, Rimorin failed to comply. Consequently, the IBP declared him to have waived his right to file an answer and proceeded with the resolution based on the evidence presented. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Rimorin guilty and recommended disbarment, which the IBP Board of Governors modified to a five-year suspension and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public. The Petition: The complainants argued that Rimorin's acts of falsifying the SPA and the subsequent MOA constituted grave misconduct and deceit. They presented documentary evidence showing that the Rubis spouses were in the US at the time the SPA was supposedly notarized in Baguio.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Rex C. Rimorin is guilty of grave misconduct and deceitful conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for using a spurious Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and attempting to remedy the fraud with a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Whether the presumption of authorship of falsification applies to Atty. Rex C. Rimorin, given his possession and use of the forged SPA, and whether he successfully rebutted this presumption.
Ruling
Atty. Rex C. Rimorin is found guilty of grave misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years. His commission as Notary Public is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from appointment as Notary Public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Rimorin's conduct violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The evidence clearly showed that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was spurious because the Rubis spouses were in the United States (US) when it was supposedly notarized in Baguio City. The subsequent execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 1997 was a transparent attempt to remedy the fraud committed in 1991 and give it a semblance of legality. Such deceitful conduct makes the respondent less than worthy of the continued practice of law. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege that requires the continued possession of good moral character, and any breach of this trust warrants disciplinary action. On Issue 2: Applying the principle from Maliwat v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document, taking advantage thereof and profiting thereby, is presumed the forger. Rimorin failed to rebut this presumption as he did not file any comment or answer despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. The dates of the documents were a 'clear give away' of the fraud, as the Deed of Sale to the So Hu spouses was executed years before the MOA that supposedly authorized the sale. The Court found no hesitation in confirming the IBP's finding of fraud and misconduct, noting that the respondent's possession and use of the forged SPA for profit made him the material author of the falsification. The Court reiterated its duty to withdraw the privilege of law practice from those who are no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, primarily a high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing. Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), a lawyer is strictly prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document, taking advantage thereof and profiting thereby, is presumed the forger or the material author of the falsification.