A.C. No. 2995 November 27, 1996
Romulo G. Dinsay, petitioner, vs. Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco, respondent.

FACTS

Sometime in 1980, Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged properties to Traders Royal Bank. After PLAMACO defaulted, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At the March 8, 1984 foreclosure sale, the properties were sold to the bank as the sole bidder. Respondent Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco, then the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, executed the corresponding Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale, which was notarized on the same day.
In April 1984, it was discovered that Page Four of the notarized Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale had been surreptitiously substituted. The substitution fraudulently lowered the bank’s successful bid price from P3,263,182.67 to only P730,000.00. This act exposed PLAMACO to a potential deficiency judgment. For this misconduct, respondent was administratively charged and subsequently dismissed from government service in a prior administrative case (A.M. No. P-85-28).

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco may be disbarred or disciplined as a lawyer for the same misconduct that led to his dismissal from government service.

RULING

Yes, respondent may be separately disciplined as a member of the bar. The Court rejected respondent’s defense of res adjudicata, holding that the doctrine applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not to the Court’s exercise of its administrative powers over lawyers. The prior administrative case dealt with his conduct as a court personnel, while the present disbarment case concerns his fitness as a lawyer. This does not constitute double jeopardy, as both are administrative proceedings.
The general rule is that a lawyer holding a government office may not be disciplined as a bar member for misconduct in his official duties. However, an exception applies when the misconduct is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency. The Court agreed with the Office of the Bar Confidant that respondent’s participation in altering a notarized public document—the Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale—after its execution, clearly reflected on his moral fitness and integrity as an attorney. His claim that signing the substituted page was a mere ministerial act was untenable. As a lawyer, he knew the legal implications and the fraudulent effect of reducing the bid price to PLAMACO’s detriment.
Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco from the practice of law for one year.