A.C. No. 11099. September 27, 2016
Lily Flores-Salado, Minda Flores Lura, and Fe V. Flores, Complainants, vs. Atty. Roman A. Villanueva, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, siblings, filed a disbarment case against Atty. Roman A. Villanueva, Jr. alleging gross dishonesty. They claimed he falsified an Affidavit of Waiver/Withdrawal of their adverse claim on a parcel of land registered under his name, which led to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of new ones in his favor. They asserted they never signed said affidavit. Separately, they accused him of dishonesty for concealing his true age to qualify for appointment as a State Prosecutor in 2006, alleging he was born on June 26, 1936, and was thus overage at 70, submitting various documents including an old residence certificate and affidavits from his siblings to support this.
The respondent denied all charges. He contended the complainants lacked proof he falsified the affidavit, explaining the property partition stemmed from a compromise agreement. Regarding his age, he presented his birth certificate showing his birthdate as November 29, 1943, making him qualified for the prosecutorial appointment at age 63. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found him liable for gross misconduct concerning the affidavit and recommended a two-year suspension, but dismissed the age falsification charge. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this but later, on reconsideration, modified it to a three-year suspension, finding him also guilty of gross dishonesty regarding his age.

ISSUE

Should the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and gross dishonesty based on the allegations of falsifying a public document and concealing his age?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the IBP’s findings and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Court clarified the distinct nature and standard of proof required in disbarment proceedings. On the first charge, the Court ruled that allegations of falsification or forgery of a public document must first be duly and competently established in the appropriate criminal or civil proceedings, not in a disbarment case. A disbarment proceeding is sui generis, focused on a lawyer’s fitness to remain in the profession, and is not the proper forum to initially litigate and establish the crime of falsification. The complainants’ mere denial of their signatures and the presentation of the allegedly falsified document were insufficient to prove the respondent authored the falsification.
On the second charge, the Court held that the respondent’s birth certificate, a public document issued by the National Statistics Office, enjoys the presumption of regularity and prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. It prevails over the private documents presented by the complainants, which were not authenticated and were of dubious provenance. Furthermore, questions regarding a lawyer’s qualifications for a government appointment are administrative matters for the appointing authority (the Secretary of Justice, in this case), not proper subjects for a disbarment complaint. The disbarment proceeding failed to substantiate any ethical breach warranting disciplinary action against Atty. Villanueva as a member of the Bar.