FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12813. September 16, 2020.]
SPOUSES JAY DIKIT AND YOLANDA DIKIT, complainants,vs. ATTY. RICARDO J. M. RIVERA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12813 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4125] — SPOUSES JAY DIKIT AND YOLANDA DIKIT vs. ATTY. RICARDO J. M. RIVERA
Spouses Jay Dikit and Yolanda Dikit charged respondent Atty. Ricardo J. M. Rivera with gross dishonesty, falsification of public document, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainants essentially alleged:
Respondent had been the corporate secretary and legal counsel of BEC Realty Corporation (BEC) 1 since its incorporation in 1994. 2 On September 3, 1994, BEC's President Zoilo Bustamante died. 3 In May 1995, respondent and the other incorporators forged Zoilo Bustamante's signature on a "Deed of Assignment" involving the latter's property under TCT No. RE-26048. 4 This "Deed of Assignment" caused the issuance of a new certificate of title in BEC's name as evidenced by TCT No. N-309185. 5 Eventually, they (Spouses Dikit) were ejected from the property which they had been occupying since 1960. 6
Meanwhile, on September 17, 2011, respondent submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) BEC's 2011 General Information Sheet (GISs) where Zoilo Bustamante's name appeared thereon as BEC's President despite his death in 1994. 7 In 2014, respondent submitted BEC's 2014 GISs to SEC where Zoilo Bustamante's name again appeared, this time, as BBC's Director.
As a lawyer, respondent failed in his duty to be honest and truthful in his dealings when a) he participated in the forgery of Zoilo Bustamante's signature; and b) he failed to correct the unlawful entries indicated in BBC's 2011 and 2014 GISs. 8
In his Answer, respondent denied having participated in the alleged forgery of Zoilo Bustamante's signature affixed to the deed of assignment. Besides, the assignment of the involved property had not been his decision. It was the sole prerogative of the corporation composed of the Bustamante family. 9
Meanwhile, he had not been aware of Zoilo Bustamante's death whose name was indicated as President in BBC's 2011 GISs, and as Director in BEC's 2014 GISs. 10 More, he did not sign BEC's 2011 and 2014 GISs submitted before the SEC. 11
He admitted, though, that apart from being BEC's corporate secretary, he had been the company's legal counsel. He represented the company in a prior ejectment case filed against complainants. 12 Consequently, by Decision dated January 6, 2012, the trial court ruled against complainants and ordered them to vacate the property therein involved. 13 Thus, the present complaint against him was a mere harassment suit. 14 Finally, in his 38 years of service as a lawyer, he had never been liable for any administrative infraction. 15
The Report and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
By Report and Recommendation 16 dated August 27, 2014, Commissioner Eldrid Antiquiera found respondent liable for violation of Canon 4 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Commissioner Antiquiera held that Spouses Dikit failed to establish sufficient evidence to prove respondent's participation in the alleged forgery of Zoilo Bustamante's signature in the purported Deed of Assignment. 18
However, respondent as BEC's corporate secretary and legal counsel submitted BEC's 2011 and 2014 GISs to the SEC despite the untruthful entries found therein. In BEC's 2011 and 2014 GISs, Zoilo Bustamante was still indicated as the company President and Director respectively, notwithstanding his death on September 3, 1994. 19 Respondent did nothing to rectify this error. 20
Commissioner Antiquiera imposed the penalty of reprimand, thus:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that a penalty of REPRIMAND be imposed against the respondent. 21
The Findings and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG)
In its assailed Resolution 22 dated June 6, 2015, the IBP-BOG affirmed the IBP-CBD's findings but modified respondent's penalty to suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months, viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby 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", considering Respondent's violation of Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, Respondent Atty. Ricardo J.M. Rivera is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. 23
On December 15, 2015, respondent filed his motion for reconsideration reiterating that: a) he was not aware of Zoilo Bustamante's death; and b) he did not sign the 2011 and 2014 GISs. 24
In its September 28, 2017 Resolution, the IBP-BOG denied respondent's motion for reconsideration, thus:
RESOLVED to DENY the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous decision of the Board of Governors. 25
The IBP elevated the entire records for the Court's final imprimatur since the IBP's factual findings, legal conclusions and proposed penalty are only recommendatory. 26 Per verification, neither complainants nor respondent filed a motion for reconsideration or petition for review as of March 4, 2020.
Core Issue
Did respondent violate the Code of Professional Responsibility when he failed to correct the untruthful entries in BEC's 2011 and 2014 General Information Sheets (GISs) filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)?
Ruling
We affirm the findings and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Spouses Dikit argued that as a lawyer, respondent failed in his duty to remain honest in all his dealings when: 1) he participated in the forgery of Zoilo Bustamante's signature in a certain deed of assignment; and 2) he failed to rectify the untruthful entries in BEC's 2011 and 2014 GISs despite being the company's corporate secretary and legal counsel.
For his part, respondent countered that 1) Spouses Dikit failed to prove his participation in the alleged forgery of Zoilo Bustamante's signature; 2) he was not aware of Zoilo Bustamante's death; and 3) he did not sign the 2011 and 2014 GISs.
We agree with the IBP-CBD's findings that complainants failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove respondent's participation in the alleged forgery of Zoilo Bustamante's signature in the purported deed of assignment. Respondent, however, is administratively liable for failure to act with truthfulness and candor in his duties not only as BEC's corporate secretary and counsel but as a member of the legal profession.
In Sps. Olbes v. Deciembre, 27 the Court decreed that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor, viz.:
Good moral character is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. It is equally essential to observe this norm meticulously during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor. The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. Lawyers must be ministers of truth. Hence, they must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good faith. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted.)
Similarly, in Tenoso v. Atty. Echanez28 the Court ordained that lawyers are bound to maintain not only high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, and integrity, thus:
Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that "a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the court." Accordingly, "[l]awyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing." (Emphasis supplied)
Here, as BEC's corporate secretary, respondent has the duty, among others, to document important company information and transactions, 29 and properly keep the corporation's books, minutes, and official records. 30 It is also incumbent upon him to ensure that the material information contained in these records are correct and truthful.
Also, being a member of the legal profession, respondent must conduct himself beyond reproach at all times whether dealing with his clients or the public. 31 Indeed, as the company's legal counsel and chief repository of all corporate records, 32 he ought to check, verify and validate that the documentation thereof meets legal requirements. To be sure, respondent rendered his faithful services to BEC corporation as corporate secretary and legal counsel for the past 26 years since the company's incorporation in 1994. Thus, it was impossible for him to have been ignorant of Zoilo Bustamante's death, much less, that the latter was no longer BEC's President and/or incorporator thereafter.
As it was, respondent did nothing to correct the untruthful entries found in the company's GISs submitted before the SEC. He conveniently alleged he did not sign the 2011 and 2014 GISs but did not explain why as corporate secretary and BEC's official records custodian, he failed to correct these misleading information and recklessly allowed them to stay in the SEC records to be relied upon by the public in its dealings with the company.
Surely, this is a clear violation of his sworn duty to be a guardian of the law 33 and to do no falsehood. He also breached Rule 1.01, Canon 1 34 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which forbids a lawyer from engaging in a dishonest or deceitful conduct.
Young v. Batuegas35 reminds that upon admission to the bar, lawyers swore to do no falsehood and maintain the highest standard of honesty and fair dealing, thus:
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. x x x The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.
Indubitably, as a lawyer, respondent is bound to always act and speak the truth in the exercise of his duties. 36 But respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as vanguard of truth and honesty. 37
When lawyers act in a manner that prejudices the dignity of the legal profession, appropriate disciplinary measures are imposed such as reprimand, suspension or even disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts. 38 Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the grounds for the disbarment or suspension of a lawyer, thus:
Sec. 27.Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds thereof. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.)
In Phil. Association of Court Employees v. Alibutdan-Diaz, 39 the Court found Atty. Alibutdan-Diaz guilty for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed upon her three (3) months suspension from the practice of law.
In Guarin v. Atty. Limpin, 40 Atty. Limpin had been the corporate secretary of Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI). In 2018, she submitted LCI's GIS to the SEC indicating therein complainant Guarin as stockholder, Chairman of the Board, and President of LCI despite knowing that the latter had never been a stockholder, nor elected as the company's Chairman or President. The Court held that in filing a GIS with false information, Atty. Limpin violated the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court suspended Atty. Limpin for six (6) months from the practice of law.
Should Guarin be applied here, respondent would have been suspended for six (6) months from practice of law. The Court notes, however, that the present case is respondent's first administrative infraction in almost four (4) decades of practice as a lawyer. The Court deems respondent's three (3) months suspension from practice of law for violations of the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as recommended by the IBP, just and proper. 41 Suspension in this case is not primarily intended as a punishment against respondent but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession. 42
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ricardo J.M. Rivera is found GUILTY for violations of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be (1) entered into the personal records of Atty. Ricardo J.M. Rivera with the Office of the Bar Confidant; (2) furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (3) circulated by the Court Administrator to all the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
This Resolution takes effect immediately. Atty. Ricardo J.M. Rivera is required to submit to the Office of the Bar Confidant the exact date when he shall have received this Resolution within five (5) days from notice.
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. 124.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 41.
5.Id. at 117.
6. Id. at 41.
7.Id. at 3.
8.Id. at 76.
9.Id. at 27.
10.Id. at 139.
11.Id. at 67.
12.Id. at 26.
13.Id. at 42.
14.Id. at 26.
15.Id. at 70.
16.Id. at 117-118.
17. Canon 4, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice.
18.Rollo, p. 118.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 116.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 120.
25.Id. at 144.
26.Bernardino v. Santos, 754 Phil. 52, 71 (2015).
27. 496 Phil. 799, 811-812 (2005).
28. 790 Phil. 1, 5-6 (2013).
29.Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 381 (1998).
30.People v. Dumlao, 599 Phil. 565 (2009).
31.Overgaard v. Atty. Valdez, 588 Phil. 422, 433 (2008).
32.Calatagan Golf Club, Inc. v. Clemente, Jr., 603 Phil. 295 (2009).
33.Katipunan, Jr. v. Carrera, A.C. No. 12661, February 19, 2020.
34. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
35. 451 Phil. 155, 161 (2003).
36.Young v. Batuegas, supra; cited in Venzon v. Peleo III, A.C. No. 9354, August 20, 2019; Phil. Association of Court Employees v. Alibutdan-Diaz, 748 Phil. 321 (2014).
37.Heirs of Romero v. Reyes, Jr., 499 Phil. 624 (2005).
38.Mata v. Mirano, A.C. No. 12110 (Notice), March 11, 2019.
39. 748 Phil. 321 (2014).
40. 750 Phil. 435 (2015).
41.Chua v. De Castro, 773 Phil. 517 (2015).
42.Mr. and Mrs. Saburnido v. Atty. Madroño, 418 Phil. 241, 248 (2001).