FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10452. June 14, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4637]
RONALD B. GUANZON, complainant, vs. ATTY. MIGUEL PADILLA PADERANGA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10452 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4637] RONALD B. GUANZON, complainant,versus ATTY. MIGUEL PADILLA PADERANGA, respondent.
After a careful review of the records and evidence presented by the parties, the Court reverses the September 7, 2019 Resolution 1 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, which adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit. 2
At the outset, it should be emphasized that disbarment proceedings are sui generis — their main purpose is to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and as a participant in the dispensation of justice; hence, the underlying motives of the complainant are unimportant and of little relevance. 3 Proceedings of this nature cannot be interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. 4 What will be decisive are the facts borne out by the evidence presented by the parties. 5 For this reason, the Court will proceed to determine respondent's administrative liability despite complainant's Affidavit of Desistance. 6
In the instant case, the Investigating Commissioner stated that "whether falsification as claimed by complainant was committed by respondent is not the Commission's concern. Some other jurisdiction may possibly take cognizance of that matter. Here, the concern is whether on the established facts, the respondent may be sanctioned as prayed for. That will have to be answered negatively." 7 Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors, recommended the dismissal of the instant complaint. Nevertheless, the Investigating Commissioner advised respondent "to be more careful in monitoring how OJT students doing assistance work in his law office perform their tasks, precisely to avoid possible complications. A similar lapse in the future may result in a more serious sanction than the advice given here." 8
Notably, the lawyer's oath mandates members of the bar to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court." Moreover, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court." Specifically, Rule 10.01 states that "a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice." Here, respondent failed to abide by the exacting standards of candor and honesty required of him.
There is no dispute in this case that the questioned affidavit was falsified because it was established that complainant, as the affiant therein, did not execute the same. In his defense, respondent claims that he had no part in the preparation of the questioned affidavit and that his signature appearing in the attestation therein was likewise forged. 9 In support of this, he was able to present the affidavits of the persons who purportedly prepared and signed the questioned affidavit (i.e., the OJT student in his law firm, the relative of complainant herein, and his clients) and the notary public who allegedly notarized the same. 10
Be that as it may, respondent cannot simply evade liability by throwing the blame on others. It was incumbent upon respondent to exercise greater diligence in handling the case of his client and not blindly allowing other persons to interfere with this responsibility. It is of no moment that respondent had no hand in the preparation of the questioned judicial affidavit. The fact remains that respondent did not observe greater care to prevent the DARAB and the opposing party from being misled. Thus, while the affidavits he presented clarified that he had no hand in the preparation of the questioned affidavit, respondent's carelessness does not free him from liability.
The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. 11 In Bukidnon Cooperative Bank v. Arnado, 12 the Court reprimanded Atty. Arnado for submitting documentary evidence which turned out to be altered, even though it was not established that he had prior knowledge of the alteration or that he willfully submitted for pre-marking the false evidence. The following pronouncements by the Court therein is applicable to the case at bar:
Even if there be no intent to deceive, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as in this case, betrays inattention or carelessness should not be allowed to free himself from a charge thereafter instituted against him by the mere plea that his conduct was not willful and that he has not consented to the doing of the falsity.
A lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken lightly. Every lawyer must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence, whether oral or documentary, is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case, even without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility that justly attaches to a conduct far from impeccable. 13
Considering that there is no apparent damage or prejudice brought about by the questioned judicial affidavit as the same was ordered withdrawn from the records, and that this appears to be respondent's first offense and he is already of an advanced age, 14 the Court resolves to reprimand him, with the admonition that he must observe a higher degree of fidelity and diligence in the practice of his profession. Respondent is also reminded to be more circumspect in performing his duties.
WHEREFORE, the September 7, 2019 Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 15-4637 dismissing the instant complaint against respondent Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga for lack of merit is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, respondent is meted the penalty of REPRIMAND, with admonishment to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. He is likewise STERNLYWARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The copy of Resolution dated April 3, 2019 which noted the letter dated November 28, 2018 of Director Marlou U. Ubano, Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in compliance with the Resolution dated August 15, 2018, and the Notice of Resolution dated September 7, 2019 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors, transmitted by letter dated October 8, 2020 of Director Randall C. Tabayoyong, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records and compact disc containing the PDF file of the case, are both NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 163.
2.Id. at 165-168. Report and Recommendation dated May 18, 2017, penned by Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda.
3.Yumul-Espina v. Tabaquero, 795 Phil. 653, 658 (2016).
4.Fuji v. Dela Cruz, 807 Phil. 1, 10 (2017).
5.Id.
6.Rollo, p. 100.
7.Id. at 168.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 167. See Position Paper filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, dated October 27, 2016, id. at 84-94.
10.Id.
11.Spouses Saunders v. Atty. Pagano-Calde, 766 Phil. 341, 350 (2015).
12. A.C. 12734, July 28, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66671>, citing Berenguer v. Carranza, 136 Phil. 75 (1969).
13.Id.
14. Respondent is more or less 84 years old. He was 79 years old based on his Judicial Affidavit dated October 26, 2016 filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, his latest pleading where he indicated his age. Id. at 102-105.