Manzano v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ederlinda K. Manzano engaged respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano to pursue collection cases for her business. Respondent was given free office space. Complainant later discovered respondent convinced one of her debtors, Abelino G. Barela, to sell his land and house to respondent for PhP 65,000, with the condition that PhP 50,000 of the proceeds be remitted to complainant to cover the debtor's indebtedness. Complainant alleged this PhP 50,000 was never turned over to her. Complainant also discovered respondent allegedly acted as a notary public without a commission. Procedural History: Complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for dishonesty (misappropriation) and misrepresentation/usurping authority of a notary public. Respondent filed an answer, generally denying the allegations and claiming the case was retaliatory. Respondent failed to appear at mandatory conferences despite notice and, after several extensions, failed to file a position paper, leading the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) to declare him as having waived his right to participate. The Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment for grave misconduct and malpractice. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with modification, recommending indefinite suspension for violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Rule on Notarial Practice, and for failure to pay IBP dues. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's resolution. The Court reviewed the findings of the IBP CBD regarding respondent's alleged misappropriation of client money and his acting as a notary public without a commission.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malpractice warranting disbarment. Whether respondent misappropriated the PhP 50,000 entrusted to him from the sale of a debtor's property. Whether respondent acted as a notary public without the necessary commission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malpractice. Consequently, he was DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name was ordered to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. The Decision was immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malpractice. The Court emphasized that the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions, requiring the highest standards of morality and integrity. Respondent's actions, including misappropriating client funds and notarizing documents without a commission, demonstrated a gross and wanton disregard for the Code of Professional Responsibility and his attorney's oath. His past administrative complaint for misapplying client money further solidified his pattern of misconduct. The Court concluded that his continued practice of law would subvert justice and bring dishonor to the legal profession. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the finding that respondent misappropriated the PhP 50,000. The evidence showed that respondent convinced debtor Abelino G. Barela to sell his property, with the understanding that PhP 50,000 of the proceeds would be remitted to complainant Ederlinda K. Manzano to cover Barela's debt. Instead of remitting the funds, respondent kept them for his own benefit without informing the complainant. This act constituted a clear violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property collected or received for or from the client. The Court noted that respondent attempted to conceal this misdeed by making it appear he acquired the property from Barela's mother via a deed of sale dated August 27, 1996, which he himself notarized without a commission. On Issue 3: The Court agreed with the finding of malpractice for respondent's act of notarizing documents without the necessary commission. Records showed he presented himself and acted as a notary public for Camarines Sur in various years (1996, 2005, 2006, 2007) without being commissioned. The Court stressed that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and performing such acts without authority is not a trivial matter. It constitutes malpractice and potentially falsification, violating the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law, and engaging in deliberate falsehood.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a personal privilege burdened with conditions, requiring adherence to the highest standards of morality and integrity. Lawyers who engage in dishonest conduct, such as misappropriating client funds or acting as a notary public without a commission, commit grave misconduct and malpractice. Such actions violate their attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and are grounds for disbarment, as the Court will rigorously police the ranks of the legal profession to maintain its purity and public trust.