G.R. No. A.C. No. 10583 and A.C. No. 10584, February 18, 2015
ROBERTO BERNARDINO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, Respondent. / ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Two administrative complaints were filed against Atty. Victor Rey Santos for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In A.C. No. 10583, complainant Roberto Bernardino alleged that Atty. Santos falsified the death certificate of Rufina de Castro Turla (making it appear she died in 1992 instead of 1990) and used it to support an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication he prepared for Mariano Turla (Rufina’s husband). The affidavit stated Mariano was the “sole legal heir” of Rufina, who “did not leave any descendant or any other heir.” Years later, Atty. Santos represented Marilu Turla (daughter of Rufina and Mariano) in a civil case for sum of money against Bernardino. During cross-examination in that case, Atty. Santos admitted he drafted the affidavit and that the statement about Mariano being the sole heir was “not true,” claiming Mariano assured him he would take care of Marilu.
In A.C. No. 10584, complainant Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal alleged that by representing Marilu, Atty. Santos was representing conflicting interests (against his former client Mariano’s interest), violating the “Dead Man’s Statute,” and engaging in forum shopping by filing multiple cases regarding Mariano’s estate. Atty. Caringal also alleged Atty. Santos converted rental income from the estate for his own benefit and cited a repealed provision of law (Article 262 of the Civil Code).
Atty. Santos denied the allegations. He claimed the death certificate and affidavit were given to him by Mariano and he was unaware of any falsification. He argued there was no conflict of interest since Mariano was deceased, and he was representing Marilu against other claimants to her father’s estate. He denied forum shopping, conversion of funds, and argued the cited law was applicable at the time of the relevant events.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a three-month suspension, finding Bernardino failed to prove Atty. Santos knew of the falsified death certificate and Atty. Caringal failed to prove conversion of funds. However, it found Atty. Santos violated rules against conflict of interest and candor to the court.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Victor Rey Santos should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Santos is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Commission on Bar Discipline but modified the penalty. The Court found that Atty. Santos violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests. By drafting an affidavit for Mariano Turla that explicitly excluded Marilu as an heir and later representing Marilu in a case to claim a share of the same estate, Atty. Santos placed himself in a position where his duty to his former client (Mariano) conflicted with his duty to his current client (Marilu). His knowledge from the prior representation could be used against Mariano’s estate, which he helped establish as the sole heir. The Court also found a violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 for lack of candor. Atty. Santos drafted a legal document containing a statement he knew was false (that Rufina had no other heirs), which he later admitted in court. This constituted a falsehood. The allegations of falsification of the death certificate, conversion of funds, forum shopping, and citing a repealed law were not sufficiently proven. Considering the violations and precedents, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Victor Rey Santos from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.