EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 11351, August 14, 2019 ]PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE () v. ATTY. AURELIO JESUS V. LOMEDA +
PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), INC., REPRESENTED BY CARLOS GAUDENCIO M. MAÑALAC, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. AURELIO JESUS V. LOMEDA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE () v. ATTY. AURELIO JESUS V. LOMEDA +
PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), INC., REPRESENTED BY CARLOS GAUDENCIO M. MAÑALAC, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. AURELIO JESUS V. LOMEDA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
For our resolution is an Affidavit-Complaint[1] filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Philippine Investment One (complainant) through its General Manager, Carlos Gaudencio M. Manalac, against Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda (respondent) for violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Factual Antecedents
This administrative case is rooted from a purported accommodation mortgage among Big "N" Corporation (Big "N") as accommodation mortgagor, Lantaka Distributors Corporation (Lantaka) as accommodated party, and United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) as mortgagee.[2] This mortgage came about by virtue of the transaction documents submitted by respondent to UCPB, which include a purported Memorandum of Agreement[3] between Lantaka and Big "N", the owner's copy of the title[4] over the townhouses owned by Big "N" and a notarized Secretary's Certificate[5] issued by respondent which reads as follows:
After some time, UCPB assigned to complainant all its rights over Lantaka's credit line, which was purportedly secured by Big "N"'s mortgage.[8]
In an unexpected turn of events, however, Big "N" filed a civil case for Declaration of Nullity of Memorandum of Agreement, Secretary's Certificate, Real Estate Mortgage, and Cancellation of Encumbrance on TCT No. 124230; Declaration of Nullity of Sale; Delivery of the Owner's Copy of TCT No. 124230; and Damages against Lantaka, a certain Ric Raymund F. Palanca (Palanca) of Lantaka, UCPB, and herein complainant and respondent, among others.[9]
Succinctly, in the said civil case, Big "N" alleged that it was not privy to any agreement as regards accommodating Lantaka for UCPB to extend a credit line to the latter. Big "N" also alleged that the Secretary's Certificate which was the basis of the accommodation mortgage was null and void as the person who executed the same, herein respondent, "is not, was not, and has never been" the corporate secretary of Big "N". According to Big "N," the company never knew who respondent was. Hence, he could not have bound Big "N" to any contract. Neither was there any truth as to the content of the said Secretary's Certificate as Big "N" emphatically denied having passed any resolution as stated therein.[10]
On March 21, 2012, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 88, issued a Judgment Based on Compromise[11] in the said civil case, wherein it approved the Compromise Agreement[12] between Big "N" and herein respondent. In the said Compromise Agreement, respondent admitted that he is not, was not, and has never been a corporate secretary of Big "N," and that he has no authority to issue a Secretary's Certificate on behalf of Big "N." Respondent also explained therein that said document was prepared by and was part of Palanca's ploy; that he was also a victim thereof as he was merely used as a tool to perpetrate the said ploy. Satisfied with the explanation, Big "N" agreed to drop the case against respondent as agreed upon in the Compromise Agreement.
Respondent's admission of his actions in the Compromise Agreement prompted herein complainant to file this administrative case. Complainant argues that respondent's admission that the statements in the Secretary's Certificate that he executed were not true, which were material to the damage and prejudice caused to complainant, makes him liable criminally and administratively. It is constitutive of a criminal act, i.e., falsification and/or estafa. It also constitutes as malpractice in violation of his oath as a lawyer.[13]
Mandatory conferences were set by the IBP-CBD and the parties were directed to submit their respective briefs with regard to the complaint. Notably, respondent never responded and participated in the proceedings despite adequate and repeated notices.[14]
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
In its Report and Recommendation[15] dated February 17, 2015, the IBP-CBD found respondent to have engaged in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in knowingly executing a falsified Secretary's Certificate and having it notarized, which document became instrumental in facilitating an obligation amounting to P10,000,000.00. The IBP-CBD also considered respondent's unjustified refusal to participate in the proceedings, the gravity of the wrongful act done, and the damage caused by his actions in recommending the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-386,[16] the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted and approved the IBP-CBD's Report and Recommendation with modification to the penalty, viz.:
The Ruling of the Court
The IBP's findings are well-taken but we find it proper to modify its recommendation as to the penalty.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that any misconduct or wrongdoing of a lawyer, indicating unfitness for the profession justifies disciplinary action because good character is an essential and continuing qualification for the practice of law.[17]
The CPR is emphatic in its provisions with regard to the high moral standards required in the legal profession. The following provisions of the CPR are relevant, viz.:
In this case, respondent patently transgressed the lawyer's oath and the CPR by knowingly misrepresenting himself as the corporate secretary of Big "N", executing a Secretary's Certificate containing false statements, and knowingly allowing himself to be used in perpetrating fraud to the prejudice of Big "N", which likewise resulted to the prejudice of herein complainant. These acts were admitted by respondent, which admission was recognized by the trial court in its Judgment Based on Compromise[19] in the civil case filed by Big "N." Notably, respondent never questioned said Judgment Based on Compromise.
We find the excuse given by respondent for his action, i.e., it was Palanca who prepared the document, and that he was merely a victim and used as a tool in Palanca's ploy and scheme, disturbing and unacceptable. The stubborn fact remains that, for whatever reason, he knowingly executed a falsified document and made himself be used in his legal capacity to perpetrate a deceptive ploy to the prejudice of Big "N". It must be stressed that the CPR exacted from him not only a firm respect for the law and legal processes, but also the utmost degree of good faith in all his professional and even personal dealings.
Worse, not only did respondent assist and became instrumental in perpetrating an activity which was aimed at deceiving others and defying the law, he likewise displayed utter disrespect to, and disregard of the authority of the Court. Despite several notices, respondent never bothered to comply with the IBP's order for him to participate in the proceedings of this administrative case. By his repeated dismissive conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. The Court cannot turn a blind eye on this matter because it reflected respondent's undisguised contempt of the proceedings of the IBP, a body that the Court has invested with the authority to investigate this administrative case against him. It cannot be overemphasized that more than anyone who has dealings with the court and its duly constituted authorities like the IBP, a lawyer has the bounden duty to comply with his/her lawful orders. Section 27,[20] Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from practice of law for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, among other grounds.
Undoubtedly, these established factual circumstances warrant this Court's exercise of its disciplinary authority. This Court cannot overstress the duty of the members of the Bar to, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness and nobility in the course of their practice of law. If the lawyer falls short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline the lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion.[21] Clearly, in this case, respondent failed to uphold such ethical standard in his practice of law.
What is more, respondent's culpability is further aggravated by the fact that, when he was still serving in the Judiciary as a Judge, he was severely sanctioned by the Court in A.M. No. MTJ-90-400 entitled Moroño v. Judge Lomeda.[22] In the said case, respondent was found guilty of: (1) gross negligence in violating or disregarding the constitutional rights of the accused in a criminal case for three counts of murder when he subscribed the purported extrajudicial confessions of the accused therein without observing the essential requirements of the Constitution and other applicable laws to ascertain the validity of such confessions of guilt, especially to such a serious charge as triple murder; and (2) having given false testimony before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City when asked to testify as a prosecution witness in the said triple murder case, with regard to the observance, or non-observance for that matter, of the constitutional rights of the accused in connection with the extrajudicial confession that he subscribed.
As found by the Court in the said administrative matter, respondent categorically lied in open court when he testified on the stand that the accused in the said triple murder case affixed their thumbmark and/or signature in the subject extrajudicial confessions before him in his court, when the evidence on record clearly proved otherwise. The Court then ruled that "respondent's false testimony and his willingness to give that testimony, had serious consequences" for the accused, which respondent evidently did not consider.
Thus, the Court held that such gross negligence and false testimony constitute serious dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and thereby, sanctioned him with dismissal from the Judiciary with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any capacity in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, with forfeiture of all earned or accrued retirement and leave privileges and benefits to which he might be entitled.
The circumstances in the instant administrative case against respondent as a lawyer, coupled with those in the administrative matter against him as a Judge and as a witness in court certainly reveal his character and manifest his propensity to commit falsehood without moral appreciation for, and regard to the consequences of his lies and frauds.
To this Court's mind, there is no necessity for members of the bar to be repeatedly reminded that as instruments in the administration of justice, as vanguards of our legal system, and as members of this noble profession whose task is to always seek the truth, we are expected to maintain a high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.[23] In fact, before being admitted to the practice of law, we took an oath "to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities" and to "do no falsehood." Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. For a lawyer to override the laws by committing falsity, is unfaithful to his office and sets a detrimental example to the society.[24] Thus, any resort to falsehood or deception evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law and highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the law profession.[25]
Therefore, rather than merely suspending respondent from the practice of law, this Court finds it proper to impose the ultimate administrative penalty of disbarment upon respondent considering the gravity of his infraction, the injury caused to entities such as herein complainant and Big "N", his disrespect and disregard to the lawful orders of this Court, and the fact that he committed the similar conduct of falsehood in his private practice as he had done when he was still in the service of the Judiciary, wherein he was severely sanctioned therefor.
Indeed, by his acts, respondent proved himself to be what a lawyer should not be.[26]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Arty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda is hereby DISBARRED and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C. J., Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on August 14, 2019 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on October 21, 2019 at 11:18 a.m.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-7.
[2] Id. at 622-623.
[3] Id. at 41-44.
[4] Id. at 355-356.
[5] Id. at 413.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 356.
[8] Id. at 623.
[9] Id. at 368-380.
[10] Id. at 372-374.
[11] Id. at 525-527.
[12] Id. at 521-524.
[13] Id. at 4-6.
[14] Id. at 624-625.
[15] Id. at 621-626.
[16] Id. at 619-620.
[17] Sosa v. Atty. Mendoza, 756 Phil. 490, 496 (2015).
[18] Valin v. Atty. Ruiz, A.C. No. 10564, November 7, 2017, 844 SCRA 111, 120-121.
[19] Supra note 11.
[20] 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 the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful 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.
[21] Gutierrez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, 789 Phil. 619, 624 (2016).
[22] 316 Phil. 103, 133 (1995).
[23] Mapalad, Sr. v. Atty. Echanez, 810 Phil. 355, 364 (2017).
[24] Id.
[25] Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, 736 Phil. 718, 733 (2014).
[26] Bueno v. Atty. Raneses, 700 Phil. 817, 827 (2012).
This administrative case is rooted from a purported accommodation mortgage among Big "N" Corporation (Big "N") as accommodation mortgagor, Lantaka Distributors Corporation (Lantaka) as accommodated party, and United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) as mortgagee.[2] This mortgage came about by virtue of the transaction documents submitted by respondent to UCPB, which include a purported Memorandum of Agreement[3] between Lantaka and Big "N", the owner's copy of the title[4] over the townhouses owned by Big "N" and a notarized Secretary's Certificate[5] issued by respondent which reads as follows:
I, AURELIO JV LOMEDA, in my capacity as Corporate Secretary of Big N Corporation, a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, x x x, hereby CERTIFY that:Thus, secured by the said mortgage, UCPB extended a credit line worth P10,000,000.00 to Lantaka. Said real estate mortgage was annotated on the title of the mortgaged properties.[7]
During the meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation held on July 28, 2006 at which a quorum was present, the following Resolutions were approved and adopted, to wit:
"RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, that the Corporation's real property and all improvements existing thereon and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 124230 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City be made the subject of a real estate mortgage under prevailing bank rates;"
"RESOLVED FURTHER, to authorize, as it hereby authorizes, EDGAR ARGOSINO NANES, to sign, for and on behalf of the Corporation, any and all deeds of mortgage and other relevant documents in connection with the real estate mortgage;" and
"RESOLVED FINALLY, that any and all transactions entered into by Edgar Argosino Nanes for and on behalf of the Corporation in connection with the real estate mortgage be acknowledged, as they are hereby acknowledged, as transactions of the Corporation."
The foregoing Resolutions have not been repealed or amended in any manner as of the date hereof and may be relied upon for any and all legal intents and purposes.[6]
x x x x
After some time, UCPB assigned to complainant all its rights over Lantaka's credit line, which was purportedly secured by Big "N"'s mortgage.[8]
In an unexpected turn of events, however, Big "N" filed a civil case for Declaration of Nullity of Memorandum of Agreement, Secretary's Certificate, Real Estate Mortgage, and Cancellation of Encumbrance on TCT No. 124230; Declaration of Nullity of Sale; Delivery of the Owner's Copy of TCT No. 124230; and Damages against Lantaka, a certain Ric Raymund F. Palanca (Palanca) of Lantaka, UCPB, and herein complainant and respondent, among others.[9]
Succinctly, in the said civil case, Big "N" alleged that it was not privy to any agreement as regards accommodating Lantaka for UCPB to extend a credit line to the latter. Big "N" also alleged that the Secretary's Certificate which was the basis of the accommodation mortgage was null and void as the person who executed the same, herein respondent, "is not, was not, and has never been" the corporate secretary of Big "N". According to Big "N," the company never knew who respondent was. Hence, he could not have bound Big "N" to any contract. Neither was there any truth as to the content of the said Secretary's Certificate as Big "N" emphatically denied having passed any resolution as stated therein.[10]
On March 21, 2012, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 88, issued a Judgment Based on Compromise[11] in the said civil case, wherein it approved the Compromise Agreement[12] between Big "N" and herein respondent. In the said Compromise Agreement, respondent admitted that he is not, was not, and has never been a corporate secretary of Big "N," and that he has no authority to issue a Secretary's Certificate on behalf of Big "N." Respondent also explained therein that said document was prepared by and was part of Palanca's ploy; that he was also a victim thereof as he was merely used as a tool to perpetrate the said ploy. Satisfied with the explanation, Big "N" agreed to drop the case against respondent as agreed upon in the Compromise Agreement.
Respondent's admission of his actions in the Compromise Agreement prompted herein complainant to file this administrative case. Complainant argues that respondent's admission that the statements in the Secretary's Certificate that he executed were not true, which were material to the damage and prejudice caused to complainant, makes him liable criminally and administratively. It is constitutive of a criminal act, i.e., falsification and/or estafa. It also constitutes as malpractice in violation of his oath as a lawyer.[13]
Mandatory conferences were set by the IBP-CBD and the parties were directed to submit their respective briefs with regard to the complaint. Notably, respondent never responded and participated in the proceedings despite adequate and repeated notices.[14]
In its Report and Recommendation[15] dated February 17, 2015, the IBP-CBD found respondent to have engaged in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in knowingly executing a falsified Secretary's Certificate and having it notarized, which document became instrumental in facilitating an obligation amounting to P10,000,000.00. The IBP-CBD also considered respondent's unjustified refusal to participate in the proceedings, the gravity of the wrongful act done, and the damage caused by his actions in recommending the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-386,[16] the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted and approved the IBP-CBD's Report and Recommendation with modification to the penalty, 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 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Thus, Respondent Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was thereafter filed.
The IBP's findings are well-taken but we find it proper to modify its recommendation as to the penalty.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that any misconduct or wrongdoing of a lawyer, indicating unfitness for the profession justifies disciplinary action because good character is an essential and continuing qualification for the practice of law.[17]
The CPR is emphatic in its provisions with regard to the high moral standards required in the legal profession. The following provisions of the CPR are relevant, viz.:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.Further, the lawyer's oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court.[18]
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In this case, respondent patently transgressed the lawyer's oath and the CPR by knowingly misrepresenting himself as the corporate secretary of Big "N", executing a Secretary's Certificate containing false statements, and knowingly allowing himself to be used in perpetrating fraud to the prejudice of Big "N", which likewise resulted to the prejudice of herein complainant. These acts were admitted by respondent, which admission was recognized by the trial court in its Judgment Based on Compromise[19] in the civil case filed by Big "N." Notably, respondent never questioned said Judgment Based on Compromise.
We find the excuse given by respondent for his action, i.e., it was Palanca who prepared the document, and that he was merely a victim and used as a tool in Palanca's ploy and scheme, disturbing and unacceptable. The stubborn fact remains that, for whatever reason, he knowingly executed a falsified document and made himself be used in his legal capacity to perpetrate a deceptive ploy to the prejudice of Big "N". It must be stressed that the CPR exacted from him not only a firm respect for the law and legal processes, but also the utmost degree of good faith in all his professional and even personal dealings.
Worse, not only did respondent assist and became instrumental in perpetrating an activity which was aimed at deceiving others and defying the law, he likewise displayed utter disrespect to, and disregard of the authority of the Court. Despite several notices, respondent never bothered to comply with the IBP's order for him to participate in the proceedings of this administrative case. By his repeated dismissive conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. The Court cannot turn a blind eye on this matter because it reflected respondent's undisguised contempt of the proceedings of the IBP, a body that the Court has invested with the authority to investigate this administrative case against him. It cannot be overemphasized that more than anyone who has dealings with the court and its duly constituted authorities like the IBP, a lawyer has the bounden duty to comply with his/her lawful orders. Section 27,[20] Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from practice of law for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, among other grounds.
Undoubtedly, these established factual circumstances warrant this Court's exercise of its disciplinary authority. This Court cannot overstress the duty of the members of the Bar to, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness and nobility in the course of their practice of law. If the lawyer falls short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline the lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion.[21] Clearly, in this case, respondent failed to uphold such ethical standard in his practice of law.
What is more, respondent's culpability is further aggravated by the fact that, when he was still serving in the Judiciary as a Judge, he was severely sanctioned by the Court in A.M. No. MTJ-90-400 entitled Moroño v. Judge Lomeda.[22] In the said case, respondent was found guilty of: (1) gross negligence in violating or disregarding the constitutional rights of the accused in a criminal case for three counts of murder when he subscribed the purported extrajudicial confessions of the accused therein without observing the essential requirements of the Constitution and other applicable laws to ascertain the validity of such confessions of guilt, especially to such a serious charge as triple murder; and (2) having given false testimony before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City when asked to testify as a prosecution witness in the said triple murder case, with regard to the observance, or non-observance for that matter, of the constitutional rights of the accused in connection with the extrajudicial confession that he subscribed.
As found by the Court in the said administrative matter, respondent categorically lied in open court when he testified on the stand that the accused in the said triple murder case affixed their thumbmark and/or signature in the subject extrajudicial confessions before him in his court, when the evidence on record clearly proved otherwise. The Court then ruled that "respondent's false testimony and his willingness to give that testimony, had serious consequences" for the accused, which respondent evidently did not consider.
Thus, the Court held that such gross negligence and false testimony constitute serious dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and thereby, sanctioned him with dismissal from the Judiciary with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any capacity in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, with forfeiture of all earned or accrued retirement and leave privileges and benefits to which he might be entitled.
The circumstances in the instant administrative case against respondent as a lawyer, coupled with those in the administrative matter against him as a Judge and as a witness in court certainly reveal his character and manifest his propensity to commit falsehood without moral appreciation for, and regard to the consequences of his lies and frauds.
To this Court's mind, there is no necessity for members of the bar to be repeatedly reminded that as instruments in the administration of justice, as vanguards of our legal system, and as members of this noble profession whose task is to always seek the truth, we are expected to maintain a high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.[23] In fact, before being admitted to the practice of law, we took an oath "to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities" and to "do no falsehood." Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. For a lawyer to override the laws by committing falsity, is unfaithful to his office and sets a detrimental example to the society.[24] Thus, any resort to falsehood or deception evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law and highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the law profession.[25]
Therefore, rather than merely suspending respondent from the practice of law, this Court finds it proper to impose the ultimate administrative penalty of disbarment upon respondent considering the gravity of his infraction, the injury caused to entities such as herein complainant and Big "N", his disrespect and disregard to the lawful orders of this Court, and the fact that he committed the similar conduct of falsehood in his private practice as he had done when he was still in the service of the Judiciary, wherein he was severely sanctioned therefor.
Indeed, by his acts, respondent proved himself to be what a lawyer should not be.[26]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Arty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda is hereby DISBARRED and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C. J., Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on August 14, 2019 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on October 21, 2019 at 11:18 a.m.
| | Very truly yours, |
(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-7.
[2] Id. at 622-623.
[3] Id. at 41-44.
[4] Id. at 355-356.
[5] Id. at 413.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 356.
[8] Id. at 623.
[9] Id. at 368-380.
[10] Id. at 372-374.
[11] Id. at 525-527.
[12] Id. at 521-524.
[13] Id. at 4-6.
[14] Id. at 624-625.
[15] Id. at 621-626.
[16] Id. at 619-620.
[17] Sosa v. Atty. Mendoza, 756 Phil. 490, 496 (2015).
[18] Valin v. Atty. Ruiz, A.C. No. 10564, November 7, 2017, 844 SCRA 111, 120-121.
[19] Supra note 11.
[20] 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 the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful 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.
[21] Gutierrez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, 789 Phil. 619, 624 (2016).
[22] 316 Phil. 103, 133 (1995).
[23] Mapalad, Sr. v. Atty. Echanez, 810 Phil. 355, 364 (2017).
[24] Id.
[25] Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, 736 Phil. 718, 733 (2014).
[26] Bueno v. Atty. Raneses, 700 Phil. 817, 827 (2012).