Philippine Investment One v. Lomeda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda for violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The case stemmed from a purported accommodation mortgage where Big "N" Corporation (Big "N") acted as accommodation mortgagor, Lantaka Distributors Corporation (Lantaka) as accommodated party, and United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) as mortgagee. Respondent submitted transaction documents to UCPB, including a Secretary's Certificate he issued as Corporate Secretary of Big "N", authorizing Edgar Argosino Nanes to sign mortgage documents. UCPB extended a ₱10,000,000.00 credit line to Lantaka, secured by this mortgage. Complainant later acquired UCPB's rights. Big "N" filed a civil case against Lantaka, Palanca, UCPB, complainant, and respondent, alleging it was not privy to the accommodation mortgage and that the Secretary's Certificate was null and void because respondent was never its corporate secretary and the resolutions stated therein were never passed. Procedural History: In a Compromise Agreement approved by the RTC in the civil case, respondent admitted he was never the corporate secretary of Big "N" and had no authority to issue the certificate. He claimed he was merely used as a tool in a ploy orchestrated by Palanca and was also a victim. Big "N" dropped the case against him. Prompted by this admission, complainant filed the present administrative case. Respondent failed to participate in the IBP-CBD proceedings despite repeated notices. The IBP-CBD found respondent liable for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, suspending respondent for three years. The Petition: The complainant argued that respondent's admission of executing a falsified Secretary's Certificate, which caused damage and prejudice, made him liable criminally and administratively for falsification, estafa, and malpractice.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by misrepresenting himself, executing false statements, and allowing himself to be used in perpetrating fraud. Whether respondent's admission in the Compromise Agreement warrants disciplinary action, considering his excuse that he was merely a victim. Whether respondent's failure to participate in the administrative proceedings constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order, and the appropriate penalty considering his previous sanction and propensity to commit falsehood.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda guilty of violating the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court disbarred respondent and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that respondent patently transgressed the lawyer's oath and the CPR by knowingly misrepresenting himself as the corporate secretary of Big "N", executing a Secretary's Certificate containing false statements, and knowingly allowing himself to be used in perpetrating fraud to the prejudice of Big "N" and the complainant. These acts were admitted by respondent in a Compromise Agreement. The CPR exacts not only respect for the law but also utmost good faith in all dealings. On the admission in the Compromise Agreement: The Court found respondent's excuse that he was merely a victim and used as a tool unacceptable, emphasizing that for whatever reason, he knowingly executed a falsified document and used his legal capacity to perpetrate a deceptive ploy. On the failure to participate in administrative proceedings and the penalty: The Court found that respondent displayed utter disrespect and disregard for the authority of the Court by failing to participate in the IBP-CBD proceedings despite several notices. This conduct exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the IBP. The Court noted that respondent's culpability was aggravated by his previous sanction. The Court found it proper to impose the ultimate penalty of disbarment due to the gravity of his infraction, the injury caused, his disrespect for court orders, and his repeated commission of falsehood.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who knowingly executes a falsified document, admits to having been used as a tool in a fraudulent scheme, and displays utter disrespect and disregard for the authority of the Court by failing to participate in administrative proceedings, warrants disbarment due to the gravity of his infractions, the injury caused, and his propensity to commit falsehood, compounded by previous sanctions as a judge.