G.R. No. A.C. No. 289; November 29, 1962
Mercedes Agdoma, Eugenia Agdoma and Pedro Agdoma, petitioners, vs. Atty. Isaias A. Celestino, respondent.

FACTS

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Isaias A. Celestino for malpractice and misconduct. The complainants are the aunts and uncle of the respondent, all being heirs of the late Julian Agdoma. Julian Agdoma died in 1945, leaving a parcel of land registered under his name. In August 1955, the respondent, a lawyer and notary public, filed an ex-parte petition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in behalf of his deceased grandfather, Julian Agdoma. In the petition, he falsely represented that Julian was alive and that the owner’s duplicate certificate of title had been burned, praying for the issuance of a new copy. He supported this petition with an affidavit purportedly subscribed by the deceased before him as notary public.
Two days prior to this petition, a deed of absolute sale was fabricated, making it appear that Julian Agdoma sold the land to the respondent for P1,000. This deed was purportedly acknowledged before a notary public named Julio B. Pequet, who was later proven to be fictitious. Relying on these fraudulent documents, the court ordered the issuance of a new title, which was then cancelled and replaced with a transfer certificate of title in the respondent’s name. Subsequently, the respondent mortgaged the property to the Philippine National Bank.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Isaias A. Celestino should be disbarred for acts constituting malpractice, misconduct, and a wanton disregard of truth and professional ethics.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Atty. Isaias A. Celestino. The legal logic is grounded on the fundamental duty of lawyers to uphold truth and the integrity of the legal profession. The respondent’s actions constituted a series of deliberate falsehoods and fraudulent schemes. First, he knowingly filed a judicial petition on behalf of a person long deceased, a blatant misrepresentation to the court. Second, he notarized an affidavit falsely attributing it to his dead grandfather, an act of falsification. Third, he fabricated a deed of sale using a fictitious notary public to simulate a lawful transaction, thereby defrauding his own relatives of their inheritance.
These acts demonstrate a profound moral unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, including absolute good faith and honesty. The respondent’s subsequent conduct, including avoiding investigation hearings and making his whereabouts unknown to the Court, further evidenced a lack of respect for judicial processes and a waiver of his right to defend himself. Such gross misconduct and malpractice undermine public confidence in the legal system and warrant the severest penalty of disbarment to protect the public and preserve the honor of the profession.