View full case

MARY JANE D. VELASCO v. ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN

FACTS:

This is a disbarment complaint filed by Mary Jane D. Velasco against respondent lawyers for forgery and falsification constitutive of malpractice. The complainant was appointed as Administratrix in Special Proceedings Case No. Q-96-27628 pending before the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 87. The respondent lawyers were collaborating counsels for the Oppositor, Josephine Abarquez. According to the complainant, Atty. Doroin deceived her into signing an Extra-Judicial Settlement and Deed of Partition that allocated a smaller share to her and a larger share to Josephine Abarquez and others. Furthermore, the complainant claimed that Atty. Doroin required her to sign a Confirmation of Authority to Sell a property owned by her father, but she did not sign it due to her lawyer's failure to negotiate with Atty. Doroin. Later on, the complainant discovered that a townhouse was constructed on the said property and was owned by Evangeline Reyes-Tonemura. Despite several orders and resolutions from the Court, the respondent lawyers failed to file their comment on the complaint. Consequently, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, and a mandatory conference/hearing was scheduled, but the respondent lawyers did not appear. Consequently, they were declared in default, and the Commissioner of Bar Discipline submitted her report and recommendation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent lawyers should be held disciplinarily liable for forgery, falsification, and malpractice.

  2. Whether the respondent lawyers failed to comply with the Court's resolution requiring them to file their comment on the complaint.

  3. Whether Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno should be declared in default for their failure to file a comment on the complaint.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to hold the respondent lawyers disciplinarily liable for forgery, falsification, and malpractice.

  2. The respondent lawyers failed to comply with the Court's resolution requiring them to file their comment on the complaint.

  3. Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno are declared in default for their failure to file a comment on the complaint.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have an ethical duty to exercise candor, fairness, and good faith in their dealings with their clients and the court.

  • Failure to comply with the court's orders and resolutions can result in disciplinary action, including being declared in default.