View full case

JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA v. ATTY. GOERING G.C. PADERANGA

FACTS:

The complainant, John Christen S. Hegna, filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) against Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga for deliberately falsifying documents. The complaint arose from a civil case filed by Hegna against Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo Panaguinip. Hegna alleged that the Panaguinips forcibly entered the leased premises and built a shop without his consent. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) rendered a decision in favor of Hegna on December 21, 2001. A writ of execution was subsequently issued, and certain personal properties of the Panaguinips were levied.

However, Atty. Paderanga filed an affidavit of third-party claim, asserting that he was the owner of certain properties that could be erroneously levied. He also filed a complaint for annulment of judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking an injunction and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the execution. The RTC granted the TRO and later dismissed Paderanga's complaint.

Hegna filed a letter-complaint against Paderanga for deliberately falsifying documents, causing delay, and possibly denying justice in the civil case. Hegna also filed a criminal complaint against Paderanga for falsification of public documents.

The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent, alleging irregularities in the third-party claim. The complainant pointed out various irregularities, such as the absence of record of transfer of the Deed of Absolute Sale in the Register of Deeds, the failure to reflect any change of ownership in the registration of the motor vehicle, the notarization of the deeds under the wrong series, erasures and tampering in the Notarial Register, and the issuance of a Community Tax Certificate to another person. The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of evidence.

The respondent argued in his comment that he did not falsify any document and that the irregularities had been explained satisfactorily before the City Prosecutor's Office. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The parties submitted their position papers, and the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP made various observations, including the dismissal of the criminal case for falsification not being entirely convincing.

The complainant presented a handwritten letter from the respondent's clients asking for mercy and forgiveness in relation to a forcible entry case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the dismissal of the case for falsification is justified based on the evidence presented.

  2. Whether the Affidavit of Third Party Claim was filed to obstruct the enforcement of the decision in the forcible entry case.

  3. Did Atty. Goering Paderanga commit an ethical violation by acquiring the properties of his client during the pendency of a judicial action of execution?

  4. Did Atty. Goering Paderanga engage in dishonest and deceitful conduct by not disclosing his ownership of the properties in question?

  5. Whether the respondent's act of non-registration of the deeds of sale to avoid paying taxes constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct.

  6. Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and failed to uphold the standards set by law for lawyers.

RULING:

  1. The resolution dismissing the case for falsification is not entirely convincing as there were evidentiary matters that could have been better addressed by a judge. The affidavit of the secretary of the notary public, the explanation for the incorrect entries in the notarial register, the affidavit of the witnesses seeking the cancellation of their original affidavit, and the explanation of the respondent regarding the discrepancy in dates should have been more thoroughly examined.

  2. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the Affidavit of Third Party Claim was purposely filed to obstruct the enforcement of the decision in the forcible entry case. The letter sent by the clients of the respondent, coupled with the unrebutted attachment of the letter to the complaint, indicates that the Panaguinip spouses still assert ownership over the properties despite the existence of a Deed of Sale.

  3. Yes, Atty. Goering Paderanga committed an ethical violation by acquiring the properties of his client during the pendency of a judicial action of execution. He violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  4. Yes, Atty. Goering Paderanga engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by not disclosing his ownership of the properties in question. This conduct violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to be honest and truthful in their dealings.

  5. The respondent's act of non-registration of the deeds of sale to avoid paying taxes may not be illegal per se, but it shows an intent to defraud the government. While it may not be considered falsification, it is deemed dishonest and deceitful conduct.

  6. The respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and failed to uphold the standards set by law for lawyers. As a lawyer, he should refrain from committing acts which give even a semblance of impropriety to the profession.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property and rights subject to any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.

  • Lawyers should not acquire the interests of their clients in properties subject to execution, regardless of the apparent lack of jurisdiction of the court.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers are required to be honest and truthful in their dealings, both in their professional and private capacities, under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The act of registration of a document is not necessary for it to have legal effect between the parties, but the recording of instruments is required to prevent frauds and establish the existence and genuineness of the recorded instrument.

  • Lawyers have responsibilities that exceed those of private citizens, and they are expected to refrain from committing acts that give even a semblance of impropriety to the legal profession.

  • In cases where lawyers engage in deceitful and dishonest conduct, the Court has imposed penalties such as suspension from the practice of law ranging from six (6) months to one (1) year.