Cruz v. Jacinto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, spouses Fernando and Amelia Cruz, filed a disbarment case against their lawyer, Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto. The lawyer allegedly requested a loan of PhP 285,000.00 from the spouses on behalf of a friend, Concepcion G. Padilla, promising repayment of PhP 360,000.00 after 100 days, secured by a real estate mortgage. The spouses provided the money to Atty. Jacinto, who presented them with a Real Estate Mortgage Contract and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 127275 in Padilla's name. Upon maturity, the spouses discovered that Concepcion G. Padilla did not reside at the given address and that TCT No. 127275 was a fake. Procedural History: The spouses filed affidavits before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). A case for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents was filed against Atty. Jacinto, leading to his arrest. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), through Commissioner Jesulito A. Manalo, conducted an investigation. The Commissioner submitted Findings and Recommendations, which were adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP, recommending Atty. Jacinto's suspension for six (6) months. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation to suspend Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto from the practice of law for six (6) months. The respondent argued that the complainants had waived their cause of action due to affidavits of voluntary desistance and quitclaim executed in the criminal case filed against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavits of voluntary desistance and quitclaim executed by the complainants in the criminal case filed against respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto extinguish his administrative liability. Whether respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto committed unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, ordering respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, with a warning against repetition of similar offenses. The Court held that affidavits of desistance do not divest the Supreme Court of its disciplinary power over lawyers.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that affidavits of voluntary desistance and quitclaim executed by complainants in a criminal case do not extinguish the administrative liability of a lawyer. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is intimately affected with public interest, and the Supreme Court's constitutional power to control and regulate it, including the authority to discipline, suspend, or disbar unfit members, cannot be divested by mere execution of such affidavits. Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, aimed at protecting the administration of justice and the public from misconduct, rather than punishing the lawyer. Therefore, the dismissal of the criminal case due to voluntary desistance did not preclude the administrative case against Atty. Jacinto. On Issue 2: The Court found that respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto engaged in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidence showed that Atty. Jacinto instructed his secretary to notarize a Real Estate Mortgage Contract by signing the name of a notary public and instructed his housemaid to simulate the signature of the Deputy Register of Deeds to make it appear that the mortgage was registered. These actions were taken to facilitate a fraudulent loan transaction where the title presented was fake. The Court noted that while Atty. Jacinto claimed to be a victim and even advanced payment, this did not exempt him from administrative liability for his deceitful actuations, which violated the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients.
Main Doctrine
Lawyers are bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility to uphold the laws of the land and to refrain from unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Supreme Court possesses the inherent power to discipline members of the Bar, and this power is not diminished by the dismissal of related civil or criminal cases due to the complainant's voluntary desistance, as disciplinary proceedings are primarily for the protection of the administration of justice and the public.