SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11764. September 23, 2020.]
ATTY. VICENTE J. CARLOS, complainant,vs. ATTY. ALBERTO CELESTINO B. REYES II, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 September 2020 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11764 (Atty. Vicente J. Carlos v. Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II). — For resolution is the Complaint-Affidavit 1 for Disbarment filed by Atty. Vicente J. Carlos (Atty. Carlos) against Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II (Atty. Reyes) for alleged violation of Canons 1, 7, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Atty. Carlos alleged that Atty. Reyes was the defense counsel in a criminal case for Estafa filed against Rosario Carlos Garcia-Abaya, Juan J. Carlos, Jr., Lucia Carlos-Locsin, and Melanie Carlos-De Leon (the Carlos siblings). The Carlos siblings thereafter filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Bonifacio Alentajan (Atty. Alentajan), the private prosecutor in the said criminal case. Atty. Carlos believed that Atty. Reyes induced the Carlos siblings to file the disbarment complaint to harass him. He further alleged that the complaint was malicious, fabricated, and perjurious. Thus, Atty. Carlos filed the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Reyes.
Atty. Carlos further stated that Atty. Reyes committed misrepresentation when he used several aliases, namely: (a) Alberto II Celestino B. Reyes; (b) Alberto Celestino Borbon Reyes II; (c) Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II; (d) Alberto II Borbon Reyes; (e) Alberto II Celestino Borbon Reyes; (f) Alberto Celestino Borbon Reyes, Jr.; and (g) Alberto R. Reyes II. Atty. Reyes also claimed to have graduated from the University of the Philippines (U.P.) College of Law in 1998 when in truth and in fact he was not, as evidenced by a Certification 2 issued by the U.P. College of Law.
On the other hand, Atty. Reyes denied that he induced the Carlos siblings to file the disbarment case against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Alentajan. 3 Atty. Reyes maintained that the Carlos siblings voluntarily filed the complaint because of their honest belief that Atty. Carlos filed the Estafa case to extort money from them. To support his claim, Atty. Reyes presented the respective affidavits of the Carlos siblings wherein they stated that they voluntarily and freely filed the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Carlos. 4
Atty. Reyes also averred that the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Alentajan arose from their institution of a Petition for Certiorari against an Order of Dismissal, a wrong remedy. He further stated that Atty. Carlos only filed the complaint to exact revenge against him.
Report and Recommendation of
In a Report and Recommendation 5 dated April 29, 2016, the Investigating Commissioner 6 recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Reyes. Contrary to Atty. Carlos' claim, the Carlos siblings voluntarily filed the complaint for disbarment against him. The Investigating Commissioner held that Atty. Carlos failed to duly prove that Atty. Reyes induced the Carlos siblings to file the complaint for disbarment against him and Atty. Alentajan.
Nonetheless, the Investigating Commissioner observed that Atty. Reyes used several names in the practice of his legal profession. Although there was no evidence showing that his use of several names caused injury, the Investigating Commissioner advised Atty. Reyes to use only his name as indicated in the Roll of Attorneys so as to avoid confusion.
In the Resolution No. XXII-2016-405 7 dated August 26, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Atty. Reyes.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and approves the recommendation of the IBP.
"In administrative proceedings, such as disbarment, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 8
In the present case, there is dearth of proof showing that Atty. Reyes did induced the Carlos siblings to file the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Alentajan. The evidence proffered by Atty. Carlos only evinced that a criminal case for Estafa was filed against the Carlos siblings whose defense counsel was Atty. Reyes, and was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, and that a complaint for disbarment was filed against him and Atty. Alentajan. These pieces of evidence do not outweigh the respective affidavits executed by the Carlos siblings wherein they unequivocally stated that they filed of their own volition the said complaint for disbarment. Thus, in the absence of misconduct committed by Atty. Reyes that seriously affected his standing and character as a member of the Bar, and an officer of the Court, the instant complaint must be dismissed.
Anent the use of several names by Atty. Reyes in his legal practice, the Court likewise agrees that no evidence was presented to support that such practice caused serious injury or damage to the public or the Courts. However, the use of several names by Atty. Reyes, other than his name as appearing in the Roll of Attorneys, would definitely give rise to confusion to the Court and to the public.
Canon 3 of the CPR states:
CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The Court agrees with the observation of the Investigating Commissioner that the use of aliases or pseudonyms is not permitted in the legal profession unlike in other professions such as those engaged in literary works and the entertainment industry. As such, in his legal practice, Atty. Reyes must only use his name as indicated in the Roll of Attorneys. Not only will this avoid confusion to the Court and the public, but more importantly it is the true and dignified information which he has stated as a member of the Bar. Further, in using his name as it appears on the Roll of Attorneys, Atty. Reyes will avoid causing any injury or damage to his clients, the public, and the Court.
On that score, We stress that the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers are therefore reminded to refrain from any act that would tend to lessen the confidence of the public in the legal profession as a noble calling, including, among others, the manner by which he/she makes known his/her legal services. 9
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Nonetheless, Atty. Reyes is ADVISED to be circumspect in using only his name as indicated in the Roll of Attorneys in the practice of his legal profession. Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." (Delos Santos, J., on official leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2.Id. at 85.
3.Id. at 43-57.
4.Id. at 58-61.
5.Id. at 126-131.
6. Leilani R. Vizconde-Escueta.
7.Rollo, p. 124.
8.Atty. Aguirre v. Atty. Reyes, A.C. No. 4355, January 8, 2020.
9.Palencia v. Linsangan, A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018.