Torres, Re: Reinstatement
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rolando S. Torres (respondent) was administratively charged by his sister-in-law, Isidra Ting-Dumali, for presenting false testimony, participating in, consenting to, and failing to advise against the forgery of the complainant's signature in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery. Specifically, the respondent allegedly participated in the execution of a false Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated November 11, 1986, making it appear that his wife and sister-in-law were the sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, and presented this document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite for the transfer of title over Lot No. 1586, which was subsequently sold. He also allegedly participated in the forgery of the complainant's signature in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated March 17, 1995, involving Lot 1603, while the complainant was abroad, and presented this falsified document to transfer the title to his wife and sister-in-law, enabling them to sell the lot. Furthermore, in a petition for judicial reconstitution of title for Lot 1605, the respondent allegedly made gross misrepresentations and offered false testimony that his wife and sister-in-law were the only legal heirs of the late spouses, facilitating the sale of Lot 1605. He also allegedly made false misrepresentations to the buyer of Lot 1605 to secure full payment, using the stationery of the Philippine National Bank where he was employed. Procedural History: In a Resolution dated April 14, 2004, the Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath and Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, ordering his disbarment. The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied with finality on June 29, 2004. A Motion for Leave to File and Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on November 9, 2004. An Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment filed on January 26, 2006, was expunged from the records. Letters addressed to former Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga and former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban seeking compassion and mercy were also expunged. Numerous other submissions seeking reinstatement or reduction of penalty were either expunged or denied. The Petition: More than ten (10) years after his disbarment, on June 23, 2015, the respondent filed the instant Petition seeking judicial clemency for reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent has sufficiently rehabilitated himself in conduct and character to warrant reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. Whether the respondent has presented sufficient proof of remorse and reformation. Whether sufficient time has lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform. Whether the respondent's age shows he still has productive years ahead for redemption, and whether there is a showing of promise and potential for public service by the respondent. Whether reconciliation with the complainant has been attempted, demonstrating remorse for previous faults. Whether there are other relevant factors and circumstances justifying clemency, considering the Court's duty to the legal profession and the public.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of rehabilitation and reformation: The Court held that the basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated himself. This requires demonstrating and proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court considers character prior to disbarment, the nature of the charges, conduct subsequent to disbarment, and the time elapsed. In this case, while over ten years had passed, the respondent failed to show substantial proof of reformation as required by the guidelines. The Court emphasized that proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable for granting clemency. On the sufficiency of proof of remorse and reformation: The Court found the presented proof insufficient. A Certification from a church pastor generally stated the respondent assisted poor litigants and was active in spreading the gospel, but lacked specifics on actual engagements. Testimonials from lawyers and a retired prosecutor referred to conduct prior to disbarment, which are incompetent to prove reformation subsequent to disbarment. Testimonials attached to a previous motion for reconsideration were executed only a month after disbarment, thus insufficient to attest to subsequent reform. On the lapse of time and potential for public service: While more than ten years had passed, this alone was not sufficient without proof of reformation. Thus, the third guideline for judicial clemency was not complied with. On the respondent's age and potential for public service: The Court noted that no evidence was presented to demonstrate the respondent's potential for public service or that he, at 68 years of age, still has productive years ahead for redemption. Thus, the fourth guideline for judicial clemency was not complied with. On reconciliation with the complainant: The Court significantly noted that the root cause of the disbarment was fraudulent acts against his sister-in-law. However, no proof was presented showing reconciliation or an attempt to reconcile with her, which would demonstrate remorse for his previous faults. The dismissal of a criminal complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents was based on lack of probable cause and did not prove innocence or remorse in the administrative context. On the Court's duty: The Court reiterated its duty to the legal profession and the public to ensure that reinstatement is granted only as a matter of justice, balancing mercy with the preservation of public confidence. Despite sympathy for the predicaments of disbarred lawyers, the Court must be objective and focus on whether moral reformation and rehabilitation have been established, disregarding feelings of sympathy or pity.
Main Doctrine
A disbarred lawyer seeking reinstatement must present substantial proof of reformation and rehabilitation, including remorse, sufficient time elapsed for reform, potential for public service, and other relevant factors, which are assessed at the Court's sound discretion.