FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12126. July 17, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4735]
JUDGE SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., complainant, vs.ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 17, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12126 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4735] (Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon). — This is an administrative complaint 1 Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. filed against Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon for his alleged commission of the following: 1) abetting disobedience to court orders and processes; 2) advancing false, misleading and dishonest submissions; 3) misuse of the rules of procedure; 4) failure to uprightly advice (sic) his clients; and 5) failure to encourage amicable settlement. 2
Complainant was the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Nabua-Bato, Nabua, Camarines Sur. Pending before him was Civil Case No. 1826-2009-SP (Civil Case No. 1826) for forcible entry. Respondent was the counsel for the plaintiffs in the case.
Civil Case No. 1826 involved a property which was also subject of Civil Case No. IR-2366 an action for annulment of sale, partition and damages between the heirs of the late Casimiro Cuarteros, including Benita Cuarteros Dancalan (Benita Dancalan), mother of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1826. Respondent was also the counsel of Benita Dancalan. In Civil Case No. IR-2366, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared void the deed of sale executed in favor of Benita Dancalan, ordered the parties to meet and arrange a project of partition, and directed the execution of a deed of conveyance in favor of Casimiro Cuarteros' other heirs. 3
Thus, complainant issued an Order directing the parties to state their position on certain matters, including: 1) the willingness of the parties to enter into an amicable settlement of their family/clan dispute; 2) the desired or proposed specific terms and conditions for a settlement; 3) the property or properties to be divided among the branches of the family/clan; and 4) the position of the parties on the RTC Decision dated March 25, 1996, the Sheriff's Report dated August 12, 2003 and the Subdivision Plan in Civil Case No. IR-2366. 4 Complainant urged the parties to enter into an amicable settlement to settle the dispute.
Plaintiffs, with the assistance of respondent, submitted their willingness to enter into an amicable settlement subject to the following conditions: 1) the property, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 7699 in the name of Benita Dancalan, is exclusive property of the latter; 2) the RTC's Decision in Civil Case No. IR-2366, the Sheriff's Report and the Subdivision Plan are not binding on plaintiffs as they are not parties to the case; and 3) plaintiffs will not abide with the partition of the property. 5
On April 19, 2011, complainant issued a Show Cause Order directing respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for his failure to comply with and advise his clients on the implications of the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. IR-2366. 6
After respondent filed his compliance, 7 complainant issued his Resolution dated June 25, 2015 which found respondent guilty of indirect contempt under the Rule 71 Section 3 (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court, and ordered him to pay a fine of P5,000.00. Respondent was also adjudged guilty of professional misconduct and was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00. 8
On same date, complainant also issued his Decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and ordering plaintiffs to restore possession of the property in favor of the defendants per the Subdivision Plan attached to the approved Commissioner's Report in Civil Case No. IR-2366. 9
Complainant then filed a verified complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) essentially adopting and incorporating complainant's Resolution dated June 25, 2015. 10
Respondent denied violating the Canons of Professional Responsibility. He asserted that he cannot be penalized for the allegations in his pleadings before complainant as they are "privileged" and that it was plaintiffs who decided to file a complaint for forcible entry and not him. He asserted that it was not his fault that the Decision in Civil Case No. IR-2366 can no longer be executed as 10 years had already lapsed. He also claimed that complainant filed the complaint against him because respondent and his clients did not sign the compromise agreement complainant wanted them to sign. 11
The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Juan Orendain P. Buted rendered his Report and Recommendation 12 dated October 3, 2016 finding respondent guilty of violating Canons 1, 10 and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner. 13
We adopt the findings of the Investigating Commissioner as approved by the IBP Board of Governors but modify the penalty.
True, lawyers are obliged to present every available remedy or defense to support the cause of their clients. However, their fidelity to their causes must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth and justice. 14 Thus, professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are obliged to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of their clients. 15
As correctly ruled by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent committed falsehood before the MCTC in: 1) propounding that Benita Dancalan was the owner of the property despite his knowledge of the Decision in Civil Case No. IR-2366 which ruled that Benita Dancalan did not exclusively own it and which ordered the partition of the property; and 2) asserting that the survey for the property was not done in his presence and was not sanctioned by the Court despite the facts that his client was given notice and a Commissioner's Report was issued which only meant that the partition of the property was upon the Court's directive. 16
Also, respondent disrespected the legal processes of the RTC in Civil Case No. IR-2366 when he declared that his clients in Civil Case No. 1826 are not bound by the Decision in the former. 17 The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment should have deterred respondent from claiming that Benita Dancalan was the exclusive owner of the property as this has already been negated in Civil Case No. IR-2366.
In Chris Garments Corporation v. Santo Tomas, 18 we explained that the doctrine of "conclusiveness of judgment" provides that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. Under this doctrine, identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues. Otherwise stated, conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. 19
Here, while Civil Case No. 1826 (forcible entry) and Civil Case No. IR-2366 (annulment of sale, partition and damages) involved different causes of action, both cases involved the same property and substantially the same parties.
As to the penalty, we find that respondent's offenses merit a penalty higher than the three-month suspension recommended by the Investigating Commissioner and IBP.
In Molina v. Magat, 20 we suspended for six months a lawyer who misled the trial court when he filed a motion to quash an information for assault upon an agent of a person in authority on the basis of double jeopardy. In his motion, the lawyer misled the court when he alleged that a similar case for slight physical injuries was already filed in court when in truth, there was none.
In Spouses Donato v. Atty. Asuncion, 21 we imposed a penalty of six months suspension on the lawyer who filed the unfounded complaint for reformation of interest to obtain financial gain and which resulted to exposing his clients to unnecessary litigation.
In Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 22 the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for six months because he engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he admitted to having allowed his corporate client to actively misrepresent to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the significant matters regarding its corporate purpose and subsequently, its corporate shareholdings.
Consistent with jurisprudence, we find that the appropriate penalty to be imposed on respondent should be a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months.
Considering, however, that respondent was previously imposed a three-year suspension by this Court in Tumbaga v. Atty. Teoxon23 for gross immorality, respondent shall serve the two orders of suspension successively.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Resolution dated June 17, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors subject to the MODIFICATION that Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon is SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon receipt of this Resolution, and to be served after respondent completes his three-year suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Tumbaga v. Atty. Teoxon.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED."Del Castillo, J., on official leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2680 dated July 12, 2019; Carandang, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 96-98.
2.Id. at 307-318.
3.Id. at 46-54.
4.Id. at 347-348.
5.Id. at 339-342.
6.Id. at 19-24.
7.Id. at 25-36.
8.Id. at 387-399, 404, 416-418.
9.Id. at 197-216.
10.Id. at 96-98.
11.Id. at 371-381.
12.Id. at 408-430.
13.Id. at 406-407.
14.Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Romero v. Atty. Reyes, Jr., A.C. No. 6192, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 1, 10. Citation omitted.
15.Avida Land Corp. v. Atty. Argosino, A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016, 800 SCRA 510, 520. Citations omitted.
16.Rollo, p. 430.
17.Id. at 411.
18. G.R. No. 167426, January 12, 2009, 576 SCRA 13.
19.Id. at 21-22.
20. A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1.
21. A.C. No. 4914, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 199.
22. A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 215.
23. A.C. No. 5573, November 21, 2017, 845 SCRA 415.