View full case

ANITA C. PENA v. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO

FACTS:

The pertinent facts of this case are as follows: Complainant Anita C. Peña, a former head of the Records Department of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno. Complainant alleged that she owned a parcel of land with an eight-door apartment located in Marikina, Metro Manila, covered by TCT No. N-61244. Complainant knew respondent as her lawyer in a legal separation case and the aforementioned property was her share in their property settlement. Complainant claimed that respondent suggested that she apply for a loan to construct townhouses on her property, which she agreed to. Respondent assured complainant that she would process the loan and prepare the necessary documents. Complainant entrusted her title to respondent for this purpose. However, when complainant visited her property, she discovered that her apartment was demolished and four residential houses were constructed on her property, which had been sold to Ernesto D. Lampa. Complainant did not sell her property and alleged that respondent manipulated the sale using her trusted employee, Estrella D. Kraus, as the instrument in the sale, and that her signature was forged. In her answer, respondent denied the allegations and claimed that it was complainant who offered the property to the buyers, the Spouses Kraus, and that complainant herself signed the Deed of Sale. Respondent claimed that she was never entrusted with complainant's certificate of title. Complainant did not verify the transaction for eight years.

Complainant Anita C. Peña filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for alleged violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility. Complainant claimed that she entrusted her certificate of title to respondent, who then executed a bogus deed of sale and notarized the same. Complainant also alleged that respondent conspired with Estrella Kraus and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to enable Lampa to register the subject property in his name. Respondent argued that complainant's inaction for eight years to verify what happened to her property meant that she had actually sold it and only concocted her story later on. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. Hearings were conducted, and both parties submitted their evidence. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing the dismissal of a criminal case against her based on the same facts. The Investigating Commissioner resolved the issue of whether respondent violated professional standards by deceiving complainant, conspiring with others, and notarizing a falsified contract of sale. The Commissioner found that respondent executed a bogus deed of sale while entrusted with complainant's certificate of title and notarized the same but did not actively conspire with others or participate in the forgery of complainant's signature. The Commissioner also found that complainant's evidence supported the conclusion that her signature on the deed of sale was forged. Despite the absence of the deed of sale, the Commissioner concluded that complainant delivered her owner's duplicate copy of the title to respondent, who refused to return it. Later on, complainant discovered that a new building was erected on her property.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Attorney Christina C. Paterno violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.

  2. Whether the dismissal of a criminal case precludes the continuance of a separate and independent action for administrative liability.

  3. Whether the burden of proof in a disbarment case rests upon the complainant.

  4. Whether the respondent lawyer should be disbarred from the practice of law based on her deceitful conduct.

  5. Whether the respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. Attorney Christina C. Paterno is found guilty of violating her oath as a lawyer, Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is consequently disbarred from the practice of law and her name is stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. Additionally, her notarial commission, if still existing, is revoked, and she is perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

  2. The dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude the continuance of a separate and independent action for administrative liability. The weight of evidence necessary to establish administrative culpability is merely substantial evidence. An administrative case can proceed independently, even if there was a full-blown trial wherein a judgment of acquittal was rendered on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt or that no crime was committed. (Freeman v. Reyes)

  3. In a disbarment case, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. (Freeman v. Reyes)

  4. The Supreme Court held that the respondent lawyer should be disbarred from the practice of law due to her deceitful conduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that the respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Canons of the Code, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03. The respondent's conduct, including efforts to prevent the complainant from obtaining copies of a deed in order to verify alleged forgery, withholding evidence, and evading direct confirmation or denial of notarizing the deed, adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law and brought discredit to the legal profession. Thus, the respondent's disbarment and revocation of her notarial commission were ordered.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The unbroken chain of circumstances can be considered as proof of deception and violation of a lawyer's oath.

  • Failure to exercise required diligence and fealty to the office constitutes a violation of professional responsibilities.

  • Gross violations of the law, such as the notarization of a forged document, make a lawyer liable for violation of their oath as a lawyer and transgressions of the legal and ethical rules for lawyers.

  • The purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring competence, honor, and trustworthiness from those who exercise important functions within the legal profession.

  • Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge their duties with fidelity, as such duties are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.

  • Failure to fulfill the duty as a notary public to submit a notarial register and necessary documents may be a ground for revocation of a notary public's commission.

  • A lawyer may be removed or suspended from office for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath required before admission to practice, willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

  • Lawyers are required to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Lawyers are not allowed to counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

  • Lawyers are obligated to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and should not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law.

  • The disbarment of a lawyer can be imposed for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as in compliance with the provisions of Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.