BANSIG VS CELERA

EN BANC

[ A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014 ]

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A.

CELERA, RESPONDENT

Facts:

Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered
into a contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with
Bunagan, respondent contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres
Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage Bansig stressed
that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal
existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage
had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.

Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his
marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a
member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.

Issue:

whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation
of justice

Ruling:

For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the
name of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed
bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a

member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty
of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of
law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.1âwphi1

December 19, 2017

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent

A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014

Facts:
Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his
client. Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two
petitions of annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial
Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

Held:
Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause
delayed the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting
falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and
reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous counsel of the respondent’s
clients. The respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond legitimate means allowed by professional
ethical rules in defending the interests of his clients. The respondent violated his duty as an attorney
“never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

Due to the respondent’s multiple violations on the CPR, and is found liable for professional
misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules
12.02 and 12.04, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR); and Sections 20 (d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law.

In Ting-Dumali vs Torres, the Court ordered the disbarment of Atty. Rolando Torres for various
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Twice, Rolando moved for
reconsideration of the order, but both were denied by the Supreme Court, and even ordered that
no further pleadings will be entertained on the matter. More than 10 years after his disbarment,
Atty. Torres moved for reinstatement to the bar. However, the Court dismissed the petition,
holding that Torres had failed to provide substantial proof that he had reformed himself,
especially considering the absence of showing that he had reconciled or attempted to reconcile
with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment case against him; nor was it
demonstrated that he was remorseful over the fraudulent acts he had committed against her.

In this instant petition, Atty. Rolando is again seeking reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys.
The Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rolando Torres should be reinstated to the bar.

The Ruling:

The petition is not meritorious.

The principle which should hold true for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial
clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the
preservation of public confidence in the courts. Thus, the Court will grant it only if there is a
showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are
indispensable.In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a
member of the Philippine Bar,[ the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests
for judicial clemency, to wit:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited
to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with
proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same
or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead
of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and
other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

In support of the instant petition for reinstatement, Torres merely rehashed all the several
testimonials and endorsements which he had already attached to his previous petitions, in
addition to another endorsement, this time coming from the incumbent Secretary of Justice,
stating that Torres “is a person of good moral character and a law abiding citizen.” However,
these testimonials and endorsements do not prove whatsoever that Torres had already
successfully reformed himself subsequent to his disbarment. Neither do they exhibit remorse
towards the actions which caused his delisting from the Roll of Attorneys, i.e., the fraudulent
acts he committed against his sister-in-law. In this regard, it is noteworthy to point out that since
the promulgation of the Court’s August 25, 2015 Resolution, there was still no showing that
Torres had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile with his sister-in-law so as to show remorse
for his previous faults.

Moreover, Torres also failed to present any evidence to demonstrate his potential for public
service or that he – now being 70 years of age– still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.

In sum, Torres failed to comply with the guidelines for the grant of judicial clemency; hence, the
instant petition must necessarily be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe,
Leonen, Caguioa, Martires, and Tijam, JJ., concur.

Del Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., on official leave.

Mendoza, J., no part.

A.C. No. 5161, July 11, 2017, RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

ROLANDO S. TORRES, Petitioner.

Citations omitted.

PEÑA vs. PATERNO

A.C. No. 4191 June 10, 2013
By: Karen P. Lustica
FACTS:
Anita C. Peña personally knew Atty. Christina C. Paterno as respondent
was her lawyer in a legal separation case, which she filed against her
husband and the aforementioned property was her share in their
property settlement. Complainant stated that she also knew personally
one Estrella D. Kraus, as she was respondent’s trusted employee who
did secretarial work for respondent.
Paterno suggested that she (complainant) apply for a loan from a bank
to construct townhouses on her property for sale to interested buyers,
and that her property be offered as collateral. Paterno assured Peña
that she would work out the speedy processing and release of the loan.
Peña discovered that her apartment was already demolished, and in its
place, four residential houses were constructed on her property, which
she later learned was already owned by one Ernesto D. Lampa, who
bought her property from Estrella D. Kraus.
Complainant learned that her property was sold to Krisbuilt Traders
Company, Ltd., and respondent was the Notary Public before whom the
sale was acknowledged. Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., through its
Managing Partner, Estrella D. Kraus, sold the same to one Ernesto D.
Lampa.

Complainant stated in her Complaint that she did not sell her property
to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., and that she neither signed any
deed of sale in its favor nor appeared before respondent to
acknowledge the sale. She alleged that respondent manipulated the sale
of her property.
Respondent alleged that complainant took hold of the Deed of Sale.
Complainant allegedly told respondent that she would inform respondent
when the transaction was completed so that the Deed of Sale could be
recorded in the Notarial Book. Thereafter, respondent claimed that she
had no knowledge of what transpired between complainant and the
Spouses Kraus.
Respondent stated that she was never entrusted with complainant’s
certificate of title. Moreover, it was only complainant who negotiated
the sale of her property.
According to respondent, complainant’s inaction for eight years to
verify what happened to her property only meant that she had actually
sold the same, and that she concocted her story when she saw the
prospect of her property had she held on to it.
Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case.

ISSUE:
WON Paterno should be disbarred.

HELD:
YES.

RATIO:
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may
be removed or suspended for any deceit or dishonest act, thus:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what
grounds. – A member of the bar may be removed 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 wilfull disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as
an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in possession of
complainant’s copy of the certificate of title to the property in
Marikina, and it was respondent who admittedly prepared the Deed of
Sale, which complainant denied having executed or signed, the
important evidence of the alleged forgery of complainant’s signature
on the Deed of Sale and the validity of the sale is the Deed of Sale
itself. However, a copy of the Deed of Sale could not be produced by
the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, as it could not be located in
the general files of the registry, and a certification was issued
stating that the Deed of Sale may be considered lost. Moreover,
respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila
her Notarial Report for the month of November 1986, including the said
Deed of Sale, which was executed on November 11, 1986. Hence,
Investigating Commissioner Sordan opined that it appears that efforts
were exerted to get rid of the copies of the said Deed of Sale to
prevent complainant from getting hold of the document for the purpose
of handwriting verification from an expert to prove that her alleged
signature on the Deed of Sale was forged. The failure of respondent to
submit to the proper RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial Register/Report
for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale, which
was notarized by her within that month, has far-reaching implications
and grave consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence on the
veracity of the said Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful conduct of
respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity. During her
testimony, it was observed by the Investigating Commissioner and
reflected in the transcript of records that respondent would neither
directly confirm nor deny that she notarized the said Deed of Sale.
For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from
the practice of law. As a member of the bar, respondent failed to live
up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly the following Canons:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated
Bar.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.

DISPOSITION: Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED