AM 1302 1391 1543; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. Nos. 1302, 1391 & 1543; April 26, 1991
PAULINO VALENCIA, CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA, and LYDIA BERNAL, complainants, vs. ATTY. ARSENIO FER CABANTING, ATTY. DIONISIO C. ANTINIW, and ATTY. EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS, respondents.
FACTS
These are consolidated disbarment cases. In Administrative Cases Nos. 1302 and 1391, Paulino and Constancia Valencia charged the respondents with misconduct arising from a land dispute. Paulino Valencia was sued for recovery of possession by Serapia Raymundo, represented by Atty. Arsenio Fer Cabanting. The Valencias engaged Atty. Dionisio Antiniw as counsel. Atty. Antiniw advised them to replace their private deed of sale with a notarized one, accepting P200 to pay a person to falsify the vendor’s signature, resulting in a forged “Compraventa Definitiva” submitted in court. After losing the case, Paulino discovered that Serapia sold portions of the litigated lot to her counsel, Atty. Cabanting, and to Atty. Eduardo Jovellanos. Constancia Valencia additionally charged Atty. Antiniw with fabricating a deed of sale for a deceased person in favor of Lydia Bernal and accused Atty. Jovellanos of notarizing fraudulent deeds in a separate 1954 transaction. In Administrative Case No. 1543, Lydia Bernal charged Atty. Antiniw with giving bad advice leading to a falsification case against her, though she later filed an affidavit of desistance.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Antiniw, Atty. Cabanting, and Atty. Jovellanos should be disciplined for professional misconduct.
RULING
The Court disbarred Atty. Antiniw, suspended Atty. Cabanting for six months, and dismissed the charges against Atty. Jovellanos. Atty. Antiniw’s actions constituted grave misconduct. He actively participated in fabricating a notarized deed of sale, advising his client to pay for a forgery and subsequently notarizing a deed for a deceased person. This demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and his oath as a lawyer and notary public, warranting disbarment. Atty. Cabanting violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code and Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by purchasing property that was the subject of litigation he was handling. This act created a conflict of interest, impairing his duty of fidelity to his client and the administration of justice, meriting suspension.
The charges against Atty. Jovellanos were dismissed. The Court found no credible evidence that he conspired to rig the civil case or that he knowingly participated in any fraud. His role as a distant kin who attempted to mediate the dispute and later appeared as an involuntary witness did not establish misconduct. The additional charges from 1954 were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the charge in Administrative Case No. 1543 was dismissed due to the complainant’s desistance and lack of supporting evidence. The Court emphasized that while desistance does not automatically terminate a disbarment case, dismissal is proper when the charges are not proven.