Sarmiento v. Fernando
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr. offered to sell a 374-square meter parcel of land in Parañaque City to complainants Leonardo L. Sarmiento and Richard G. Halili. He represented himself as the absolute owner, claiming his parents had conveyed the land to him via a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to avoid taxes. He further asserted that his parents were alive and he was their sole heir. Relying on these representations, complainants purchased the land for P3,740,000.00, and the title was transferred to Sylvia Sarmiento. Procedural History: Subsequently, the respondent's mother and siblings filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 14-040) to nullify the sale, revealing that the respondent's father had died in 1997 and the SPA was a forgery. To settle the case, complainants were forced to pay the real heirs an additional P2,992,000.00. Complainants then filed an estafa complaint and this disbarment petition. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended disbarment, which the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted. The Petition: The complainants seek the disbarment of the respondent for gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically for his deceitful use of a forged SPA. The respondent argued for dismissal, claiming the complainants lacked "clean hands" and committed perjury by not disclosing the pending estafa case in their verification. He also claimed the 2012 SPA was merely a reiteration of older, valid SPAs.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent is guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for using a falsified SPA and deceitful representations. Whether the complainants committed perjury or forum shopping by filing both an estafa complaint and a disbarment petition.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr. a.k.a. Jerry C. Fernando GUILTY of gross violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the evidence established the SPA dated 14 April 2012 was a forgery because the respondent's father had been dead since 1997. Respondent used this falsified document and other deceitful representations to profit from property that was not his to sell. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, Rule 7.03 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The Court emphasized that there is no distinction between a lawyer's private and professional capacity regarding administrative liability. Consequently, the respondent's actions demonstrated a gross lack of integrity and unfitness for the legal profession. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the complainants did not commit perjury in their verification/certification. The preliminary investigation for estafa is distinct from an administrative case for disbarment, as they involve different issues and purposes. The criminal case determines probable cause for a crime, while the administrative case determines the lawyer's fitness to remain in the Bar. Therefore, the pendency of a criminal complaint does not preclude the filing of a disciplinary proceeding. The respondent's attempt to dismiss the petition on this ground was without merit. The Court noted that the purpose of the preliminary investigation is the determination of probable cause for criminal indictment, whereas the administrative case focuses on the lawyer's ethical standing.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality, and any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. A lawyer who uses a falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to sell property and profit personally commits gross violations of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). There is no distinction between a lawyer's private or professional capacity regarding such transgressions, as a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Consequently, the employment of deceit and the use of forged documents to gain personal wealth at the expense of others warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment.