G.R. No. A.C. No. 8124. March 19, 2019. ATTY. FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN, Complainant, v. ATTY. DOMINGO C. LAENO, ATTY. ROMEO R. ROBISO, ATTY. REGINALDO D. BERGADO, Respondents.
FACTS:

Complainant Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin filed a disbarment case against respondents. The core dispute originated from a sale where Atty. Domingo C. Laeno sold a property to Marcelina Agustin (the complainant’s mother) for ₱6.5 Million. After the sale, Laeno leased the property but later defaulted on rent and refused to vacate, leading to an ejectment suit. During these proceedings, it was discovered that Laeno had executed two separate Deeds of Absolute Sale for the same single transaction, both notarized by Atty. Reginaldo D. Bergado on the same date under the same notarial details. These deeds falsely stated the consideration as ₱2 Million and ₱2.5 Million, respectively, which was a significant undervaluation from the actual price. Laeno subsequently offered one of these bogus deeds as evidence before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Laeno initiated multiple lawsuits against Marcelina and her daughter Perpetua, seemingly to avoid eviction after an unfavorable ejectment judgment. Atty. Bergado also facilitated the annotation of court orders from an unrelated case on Marcelina’s title.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Domingo C. Laeno and Atty. Reginaldo D. Bergado violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and related laws, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Court adopted the IBP’s findings but modified the penalties. Atty. Laeno was found guilty of multiple violations. His execution of two deeds with undervalued considerations for a single transaction constituted a scheme to evade taxes, violating Canon 1 (upholding the law). Offering a bogus deed as evidence violated Canon 10 (candor to the court). His institution of several suits to delay the execution of a final ejectment judgment violated Canon 12 (duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice). Collectively, these acts also breached Canon 7 (upholding the profession’s integrity). The Court increased his suspension from two to five years, deeming the original penalty insufficient for his reprehensible conduct. Regarding Atty. Bergado, the IBP found him guilty for notarizing two contradictory deeds for one transaction, violating the Notarial Law and Canon 1. However, the Supreme Court noted that Bergado had already died in 2008, a fact overlooked by the IBP investigator, thus terminating the administrative case against him. The case against Atty. Romeo R. Robiso was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.