TodayisMonday,August08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

A.M.Nos.1302,1391and1543April26,1991

PAULINOVALENCIA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.ARSENIOFERCABANTING,respondent.

CONSTANCIAL.VALENCIA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.DIONISIOC.ANTINIW,ATTY.EDUARDOU.JOVELLANOSandATTY.ARSENIOFER.CABANTING,
respondents.

LYDIABERNAL,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.DIONISIOC.ANTINIW,respondent.

PERCURIAM:

TheseconsolidatedadministrativecasesseektodisbarrespondentsDionisioAntiniw,ArsenioFer.Cabantingand
EduardoJovellanos(thelastnamed,nowanMCTCJudge)forgravemalpracticeandmisconductintheexercise
oftheirlegalprofessioncommittedinthefollowingmanner:

1.AdministrativeCasesNo.1302and1391.

In1933,complainantPaulinoValencia(Paulinoinshort)andhiswifeRomanaallegedlyboughtaparcelofland,
where they built their residential house, from a certain Serapia Raymundo, an heir of Pedro Raymundo the
originalowner.However,theyfailedtoregisterthesaleorsecureatransfercertificateoftitleintheirnames.

SometimeinDecember,1968,aconferencewasheldinthehouseofAtty.EduardoJovellanostosettletheland
dispute between Serapia Raymundo (Serapia in short) another heir of Pedro Raymundo, and the Valencia
spousessincebothwererelativesanddistantkinofAtty.Jovellanos.Serapiawaswillingtorelinquishownershipif
theValenciascouldshowdocumentsevidencingownership.PaulinoexhibitedadeedofsalewrittenintheIlocano
dialect.However,Serapiaclaimedthatthedeedcoveredadifferentproperty.PaulinoandSerapiawerenotable
tosettletheirdifferences.(ReportofInvestigatingJudgeCatalinoCastaneda,Jr.,pp.2122).

OnDecember15,1969Serapia,assistedbyAtty.ArsenioFer.Cabanting,filedacomplaintagainstPaulinoforthe
recovery of possession with damages. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. V2170, entitled "Serapia
Raymundo,Plaintiff,versusPaulinoValencia,Defendant."(Report,p.11).

SummonedtopleadinCivilCaseNo.V2170,theValenciasengagedtheservicesofAtty.DionisioAntiniw.Atty.
Antiniw advised them to present a notarized deed of sale in lieu of the private document written in Ilocano. For
thispurpose,PaulinogaveAtty.AntiniwanamountofP200.00topaythepersonwhowouldfalsifythesignature
oftheallegedvendor(Complaint,p.2Rollo,p.7).A"CompraventaDefinitiva"(Exh.B)wasexecutedpurporting
tobeasaleofthequestionedlot.

On January 22, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, rendered a decision in favor of
plaintiff, Serapia Raymundo. The lower court expressed the belief that the said document is not authentic.
(Report,p.14)

Paulino, thereafter, filed a Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65, with Preliminary Injunction before the Court of
Appealsallegingthatthetrialcourtfailedtoprovideaworkablesolutionconcerninghishouse.Whilethepetition
waspending,thetrialcourt,onMarch9,1973,issuedanorderofexecutionstatingthat"thedecisioninthiscase
hasalreadybecomefinalandexecutory"(Exhibits3and3A).OnMarch14,1973,awritofexecutionwasissued.

On March 20, 1973, Serapia sold 40 square meters of the litigated lot to Atty. Jovellanos and the remaining
portionshesoldtohercounsel,Atty.ArsenioFer.Cabanting,onApril25,1973.(Annex"A"ofAdministrativeCase
No.1302).

On March 4, 1974, Paulino filed a disbarment proceeding (docketed as Administrative Case No. 1302) against
Atty.CabantingonthegroundthatsaidcounselallegedlyviolatedArticle1491oftheNewCivilCodeaswellas
ArticleIIoftheCanonsofProfessionalEthics,prohibitingthepurchaseofpropertyunderlitigationbyacounsel.

OnMarch21,1974theappellatecourtdismissedthepetitionofPaulino.

On October 14, 1974, Constancia Valencia, daughter of Paulino, filed a disbarment proceeding (docketed as
Administrative Case No. 1391) against Atty. Dionisio Antiniw for his participation in the forgery of "Compraventa
Definitiva"anditssubsequentintroductionasevidenceforhisclientandalso,againstAttys.EduardoJovellanos
and Arsenio Cabanting for purchasing a litigated property allegedly in violation of Article 1491 of the New Civil
Codeandagainstthethreelawyers,forallegedlyriggingCivilCaseNo.V2170againstherparents.OnAugust
17,1975,ConstanciaValenciafiledadditionalchargesagainstAtty.AntiniwandAtty.Jovellanosasfollows:

1.AGAINSTATTY.DIONISIOANTINIW:

Intheyear1973Atty.DionisioAntiniwfraudulentlyandinconfabulationwithoneLydiaBernalhadadeedof
sale,fabricated,executedandratifiedbeforehimasNotaryPublicbyoneSantiagoBernalinfavorofLydia
BernalwhenasamatteroffactsaidSantiagoBernalhaddiedalreadyabouteightyearsbeforeintheyear
1965.

2.AGAINSTATTY.EDUARDOJOVELLANOS:

Intheyear1954Atty.EduardoJovellanos,fraudulentlyandinbadfaith,inconfabulationwithRosadelos
Santosasvendeehad,asNotaryPublic,executedandratifiedbeforehim,two(2)deedsofsaleinfavorof
saidRosadelosSantoswhenasamatteroffactthesaiddeedswerenotinfactexecutedbythesupposed
vendorRufinoRincorayaandsoRufinoRincorayahadfiledaCivilCaseinCourttoannulanddeclarevoid
thesaidsales(p.7,Report)

2.AdministrativeCaseNo.1543.

AdeedofdonationpropternuptiasinvolvingthetransferofapieceoflandbythegrandparentsofLydiaBernal
(complainant,)infavorofherparents,waslostduringthelastworldwar.Forthisreason,hergrandmother(the
livingdonor)executedadeedofconfirmationofthedonationpropternuptiaswithrenunciationofherrightsover
theproperty.(Complaint,p.1).Notwithstandingthedeed,hergrandmotherstillofferedtosellthesameproperty
in favor of the complainant, ostensibly to strengthen the deed of donation (to prevent others from claiming the
property).

On consultation, Atty., Antiniw advised them to execute a deed of sale. Atty. Antiniw allegedly prepared and
notarized the deed of sale in the name of her grandfather (deceased at the time of signing) with her
grandmother'sapproval.

FelicidadBernalDuzon,herauntwhohadaclaimoverthepropertyfiledacomplaintagainsther(LydiaBernal)
andhercounsel,Atty.Antiniwforfalsificationofapublicdocument.(Complaint,pp.12)Thefiscalexoneratedthe
counselforlackofevidence,whileacasewasfiledincourtagainstLydiaBernal.

On October 3, 1975, Lydia Bernal filed a disbarment proceeding (docketed as Administrative Case No.1543)
againstAtty.Antiniwforillegalactsandbadadvice.

PursuanttotheresolutionoftheFirstDivisionofthisCourtdatedDecember9,1974,theresolutionoftheSecond
Division dated March 3, 1975 and the two resolutions of the Second Division both dated December 3, 1975,
Administrative Cases Nos. 1302, 1391 and 1543 were referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for
investigation,reportandrecommendation.

Upon formal request of Constancia L. Valencia and Lydia Bernal dated March 3, 1976, all of these cases were
orderedconsolidatedbySolicitorGeneralEstelitoP.MendozaperhishandwrittendirectiveofMarch9,1976.

On April 12, 1988, We referred the investigation of these cases to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. When
1 w p h i1

Atty.JovellanoswasappointedasMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudgeofAlcalaBautista,Pangasinan,Wereferred
the investigation of these cases to Acting Presiding Judge Cesar Mindaro, Regional Trial Court, Branch 50,
Villasis,Pangasinan,forfurtherinvestigation.
Inviewoftheseriousnessofthechargeagainsttherespondentsandtheallegedthreatsagainstthepersonof
complainant Constancia L. Valencia, We directed the transfer of investigation to the Regional Trial Court of
Manila.

ThethreeadministrativecaseswereraffledtoBranchXVIIoftheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,underthesalaof
JudgeCatalinoCastaneda,Jr.

Afterinvestigation,JudgeCatalinoCastaeda,Jr.,recommendedthedismissalofcasesagainstAtty.Jovellanos
and Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting dismissal of Administrative Case No. 1543 and the additional charges in
AdministrativeCaseNo.1391againstAntiniwandJudgeJovellanoshowever,herecommendedthesuspension
of Atty. Antiniw from the practice of law for six months finding him guilty of malpractice in falsifying the
"CompraventaDefinitiva."

Thesimplifiedissuesoftheseconsolidatedcasesare:

I.WhetherornotAtty.CabantingpurchasedthesubjectpropertyinviolationofArt.1491oftheNewCivil
Code.

II.WhetherornotAttys.AntiniwandJovellanosareguiltyofmalpracticeinfalsifyingnotarialdocuments.

III.WhetherornotthethreelawyersconnivedinriggingCivilCaseNo.V2170.

UnderArticle1491oftheNewCivilCode:

Thefollowingpersonscannotacquirebypurchase,evenatapublicofjudicialauction,eitherinpersonor
throughthemediationofanother:

xxxxxxxxx

(5)...thisprohibitionincludestheactofacquiringbyassignmentandshallapplytolawyers,withrespect
tothepropertyandrightswhichmaybetheobjectofanylitigationinwhichtheymaketakepartbyvirtueof
theirprofession.

Public policy prohibits the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved. It is intended to curtail any
undue influence of the lawyer upon his client. Greed may get the better of the sentiments of loyalty and
disinterestedness.Anyviolationofthisprohibitionwouldconstitutemalpractice(Inre:AttorneyMelchorRuste,40
O.G.p.78)andisagroundforsuspension.(Beltranvs.Fernandez,70Phil.248).

Art. 1491, prohibiting the sale to the counsel concerned, applies only while the litigation is pending. (Director of
Landsvs.Adaba,88SCRA513Hernandezvs.Villanueva,40Phil.775).

In the case at bar, while it is true that Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting purchased the lot after finality of judgment,
therewasstillapendingcertiorariproceeding.Athingissaidtobeinlitigationnotonlyifthereissomecontestor
litigationoveritincourt,butalsofromthemomentthatitbecomessubjecttothejudicialactionofthejudge.(Gan
Tingco vs. Pabinguit, 35 Phil. 81). Logic indicates, in certiorari proceedings, that the appellate court may either
grantordismissthepetition.Hence,itisnotsafetoconclude,forpurposesunderArt.1491thatthelitigationhas
terminated when the judgment of the trial court become final while a certiorari connected therewith is still in
progress.Thus,purchaseofthepropertybyAtty.CabantinginthiscaseconstitutesmalpracticeinviolationofArt.
1491andtheCanonsofProfessionalEthics.Clearly,thismalpracticeisagroundforsuspension.

The sale in favor of Atty. Jovellanos does not constitute malpractice. There was no attorneyclient relationship
betweenSerapiaandAtty.Jovellanos,consideringthatthelatterdidnottakepartascounselinCivilCaseNo.V
2170.ThetransactionisnotcoveredbyArt.1491norbytheCanonsadvertedto.

II

It is asserted by Paulino that Atty. Antiniw asked for and received the sum of P200.00 in consideration of his
executing the document "Compraventa Definitiva" which would show that Paulino bought the property. This
charge, Atty. Antiniw simply denied. It is settled jurisprudence that affirmative testimony is given greater weight
thannegativetestimony(Bayasenvs.CA,L25785,Feb.26,1981Vda.deRamosvs.CA,etal.,L40804,Jan.
31, 1978). When an individual's integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he deny the charges
against him he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still
maintainsth