THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6601. April 2, 2018.]
SALVACION PRIETO, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. JUDAR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 2, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 6601 (Salvacion Prieto v. Atty. Vicente G. Judar) — Before the Court is a Complaint 1 for disbarment filed by Salvacion Prieto (complainant) against Atty. Vicente G. Judar (respondent).
The complaint
Complainant alleged that in December 2001, she secured the services of respondent as counsel in a criminal complaint filed against her son. In one of their conversations, complainant mentioned that she was selling her house and lot located in Bigaa, Legazpi City but was having a hard time selling it because it was untitled. Respondent showed interest and said that his father would like the ambiance of the place as it was near the beach. Respondent suggested that he would process the titling of the property but the expenses would be shouldered by complainant. Complainant agreed to sell the property to respondent in the amount of P750,000.00 less the expenses for the titling thereof and the capital gains tax.
Respondent started paying the complainant on installment basis. On March 19, 2002, respondent delivered to complainant two (2) Promissory Notes 2 signed by spouses Jessie Millado and Edna Judar-Millado (spouses Millado), who turned out to be the actual buyers of the property, assuring payment of the balance of the purchase price. After payment of the balance, respondent asked complainant to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale 3 in favor of spouses Millado, and Authorization 4 in favor of Arlene Llaguno (Llaguno), the person who would process the titling of the property. Complainant, upon demand of respondent, also delivered to the latter a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale 5 executed by Macario Maluya (Maluya) from whom she acquired the house and lot and the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement and Sale 6 executed by the heirs of Norberta Anonuevo and Florencio Arienda, the original owners of the subject property. Complainant thought that these documents were necessary for the titling of the subject property.
On September 9, 2004, complainant was surprised when she received a subpoena from the City Prosecutor's Office of Legazpi City for her alleged participation in the execution of purported falsified documents. Upon verification, complainant found out that Nilda Arienda Balasta, one of the heirs of Norberta Anonuevo and Florencio Arienda filed a complaint for falsification of public document and she was being linked in the alleged presentation of a falsified Decision 7 dated December 3, 2001 purportedly rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 1 and a Certificate of Finality. 8 These documents were used for the reconstitution of title of the subject property where she was made to appear as the petitioner.
Complainant asserted that respondent orchestrated the falsification of these documents and made it appear that she had filed the petition for reconstitution of title of the subject property when, in fact, she never consented nor authorized the filing of the same. 9
The Comment
In his Comment, 10 respondent denied the allegations and averred that he had no reason to falsify the documents. He admitted that complainant mentioned to him that she was selling her house and lot in Bigaa, Legazpi City but that he never manifested his intent to buy the property because he already had a house and lot in Cabugao, Legazpi City where he resides alone, and that his parents resided in Castilla, Sorsogon which was just walking distance from the seashore.
Respondent narrated that in February 2002, his father got sick so his sisters, Edna Judar-Millado (Edna) and Marilyn Judar, who were both in Italy, went home to the Philippines. In March 2002, when his father died, his brother-in-law, Jessie Millado (Jessie), and his minor children followed. During the wake, complainant offered the services of her sisters to babysit the children of Edna and to attend to the mourners paying respect to his father. After interment, complainant went to his house and talked to Edna. Complainant offered to sell her house and lot, on installment, for P750,000.00 because she needed money for the tuition fees of her children and even invited Edna to see the place. Because of pity, Edna was persuaded to buy the property, thus, a Deed of Sale was executed. Complainant was initially paid the amount of P541,485.00, and for the remaining balance, Edna was required to execute two (2) promissory notes, one for P100,000.00 due on April 30, 2002 and the remaining P102,515.00 on May 31, 2002. Llaguno, a friend of complainant, was with the latter when the promissory notes were executed and even signed as witness thereof. It was also during this time that Llaguno presented herself to complainant to process the transfer of the property to Edna. On April 4, 2002, after Edna left for Italy and despite prematurity of the obligation to pay under the notes, complainant demanded from respondent to make immediate payment of the remaining balance. Hence, respondent called his sister to immediately remit the money for the payment of the remaining balance.
Respondent stated that he was astonished when he received a copy of the subpoena issued to Edna and Jessie implicating them in the falsification case. He was then prompted to investigate the incident and found out that complainant was the paramour of Maluya, the previous owner of the subject property. Respondent insinuated that the sale of the subject property to complainant by Maluya could be fictitious because complainant had no means of livelihood and that the deed of sale was executed a few months before Maluya's death. Respondent also found out that on February 21, 2002, complainant authorized Llaguno to apply for the issuance of the reconstituted title over the subject lot and the latter presented before the Register of Deeds of Legazpi City, among others, the questioned decision and certificate of finality.
Respondent asserted that it was complainant who had motive to cause the titling of the subject property and that all indications pointed to her and Llaguno as the persons responsible for the alleged falsification of the decision for reconstitution of title and the certificate of finality submitted to the Register of Deeds to effect the titling of the subject property.
In a Resolution, 11 dated July 4, 2005, the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The case was then set by the Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) for mandatory conference. Thereafter, the parties were required to submit their respective position papers.
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In its Report and Recommendation, 12 dated October 4, 2011, the Commission found that respondent violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon I and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be meted the penalty of censure. It stated that the motive to obtain the title over the subject property could be attributed to respondent whose direct participation in almost all the stages of the transaction was evident.
In its Resolution No. XX-2013-578, 13 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP-Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the Commission, as follows:
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules and considering that Respondent orchestrated the falsification, Atty. Vicente G. Judar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. 14
On October 1, 2013, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration 15 insisting that it was complainant and Llaguno who authored the falsification of the documents used to reconstitute the title of the subject property.
In its Resolution, 16 dated May 3, 2014, the IBP-Board denied the motion for reconsideration for failure of respondent to present any new argument that would justify a reversal of its earlier decision.
Undeterred, respondent filed a second a Motion for Reconsideration 17 but it was denied in a Resolution 18 dated November 29, 2016.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the recommendation of the IBP-Board.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against a lawyer, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant of evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant." 19 Preponderance of evidence means "evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto." 20
In the present case, the Court agrees with the Commission's findings that respondent was the mastermind of the alleged falsification. The Court is in consonance with its observation that, as between complainant and respondent, it is the latter who has an interest to have the title of the subject property transferred in the names of spouses Millado. As a matter of fact, complainant sold the subject property at a reduced price because there was an agreement that respondent would process the titling of the property. Also, it was respondent who prepared the deed of absolute sale in favor of spouses Millado and the authorization allowing Llaguno to process the titling of the subject property and the complainant merely signed them. Moreover, respondent instructed complainant to turnover to him the deed of sale executed by Maluya in her favor and the deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by the heirs of the original owners. These instruments are among the documents used to secure the title of the subject property in the names of spouses Millado.
The Court takes note that when Balasta found out that the title of the subject land was transferred in the names of spouses Millado, she filed a complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Legazpi City (OCP), for falsification of documents against several individuals including herein complainant. After the investigation, the OCP found sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of the Information 21 charging respondent with falsification of public documents.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. They are proscribed from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct 22 and engaging in activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. 23 They should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. 24
Respondent committed an act which fell short of the standard of the norm of conduct required of every lawyer. He deceived the complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and authorization in favor of Llaguno and induced her to turnover the pertinent documents necessary to enable him to secure the titling of the property. Complainant parted with the documents believing that respondent would process the titling of the property in accordance with the procedures allowed by law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Judar is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished to all courts in the country and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of this decision be appended to the personal record of Atty. Vicente G. Judar in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2.Id. at 6.
3.Id. at 8.
4.Id. at 12.
5.Id. at 9.
6.Id. at 10-11.
7.Id. at 18-21.
8.Id. at 22.
9. Complaint, rollo, pp. 3-4.
10.Rollo, pp. 52-59.
11.Id. at 270.
12. Id. at 899-902.
13. Id. at 898.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 545-551.
16. Id. at 897.
17. Id. at 551-576.
18. Id. at 895.
19. Spouses Amatorio v. Yap, et al., 755 Phil. 336, 347 (2015), citing Cruz v. Atty. Centron, 484 Phil. 671, 675 (2004).
20. Aba, et al. v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., et al., 678 Phil. 588, 601 (2011).
21. Rollo, pp. 381-383.
22. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
23. Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
24. Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 912, 917 (1997).