Cuenco v.

Fernan

158 SCRA 29, 17 February 1988

Facts:

Vito Borromeo died without any forced heirs, but left behind properties. However, a petition for probate
of a one-page document purportedly the last will and testament of Vito was filed before the Court of
First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. In the said will, Fortunato, Tomas, and Amelia (all surnamed) Borromeo were
named heirs to the late Vitos property. The court declared the document to be a forgery (it was judged
with finality by the SC).

Intestacy proceedings then began. 9 persons were named as the heirs to Vitos property. During the
proceedings, 5 cases/petitions were filed before the SC. It was the Third Division, under Justice Gutierrez,
who handled the 5 cases which it consolidated into 1.

Atty. Cuenco, petition on the case at bar, asked for an extension for the filing of a motion for
reconsideration (MOR) on Justice Gutierrez decision. This was granted by the Third Division but under
the condition that it wouldnt allow another extension. The Court en banc dismissed in Cuencos MOR for
lack of merit.

Now, he petitions before the SC for the disbarment of Justice Marcelo Fernan on the following grounds:

1. Fernan appeared as counsel for Forunato, Tomas, and Amelia during the CFI trial and continues
to represent them despite being appointed as a Justice of the SC.
2. Fernan pushed to assign the Borromeo case into his Branch (the Third Branch) to influence the
decision of the proceedings.
3. Fernan operated his office in Cebu to create fake heirs of Borromeo.
4. Fernan abolished and crippled the function of the CA knowing that the case re: Cuencos attys
fees are pending before the CA.
5. Fernans determination to collect large sums of money prompted him to influence the Third
Branchs decision re: Cuencos complaint.
6. Fernan violated his oath of office as lawyer.

Issue:

Whether or not Cuencos charges against Justice Fernan have merit.

Held:

NO. Cuencos charges are compeletely unfounded based on the facts on record.

1. Fernans involvement in the case already ceased even prior to his appointment to the SC.
2. The case was assignede for study Justice Gutierrez, even prior to Justice Fernans appointment to
the Court. After the 1987 Consti took effect, the Court was re-organized through an internal
procedure thus assigning Justice Fernan and Gutierrez into the Third Branch. Justice Fernan even
inhibited from the deliberations on the Borromeo case. Likewise, he did not take part in the
resolution of it.
3. SC: The Court is unable to see how Mr. Justice Fernan, whose involvement in the Vito Borromeo
estate proceedings began on 7 August 1965 and ended on 19 February 1968, could have had any
control or influence over the actions of the instituted heirs (Fortunate, Tomas and Amelia
Borromeo) either in 1952 when Special Proceedings 916-R for probate of the will was, or in 1954
when said heirs claimed rights of ownership over the aforementioned thirteen (13) parcels of land
and sought to exclude them from the estate of the decedent.
4. SC: It is evident that the "legitimate functions" of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 08093
where complainant Cuenco has filed a claim for payment of attorney's fees have not been
abolished and crippled" by the mere fact that the maximum amounts, expressed in a percentage
of the market value of the distributive shares received from the estate, of attorney's fees had
been determined and set by this Court.
5. SC: [C]omplainant Cuenco's complaint in A.M. No. R-593-RTJ was dismissed by a Resolution of
the Court en banc, not of the Third Division as Cuenco apparently believes. In any case, the
Members of the Third Division of the Court expressly reject complainant Cuenco's assertion or
insinuation that they were unduly influenced by any consideration other than the simple lack of
merit of the complaint in A.M. No. R-593-RTJ.
6. SC: There is no in the record, other than the undocumented assertions of complainant Cuenco,
that would suggest that Mr. Justice Fernan has violated his oath of office as a lawyer either during
the time when he was collaborating counsel for Tomas and Amelia Borromeo in the proceedings
below or thereafter, and since joining this Court

The Court added that there is another reason why the disbarment complaint was dismissed:
Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution, be members of
the Philippine Bar and may be removed from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2],
Constitution).

Same situation applies to: the Ombudsman and deputies, majority of COMELEC members, COA
members, who are not CPAs all of whom are constitutionally required to be lawyers.

CHARGES DISMISSED.