55 Cenzia v Rubia

7/24/2019 55 Cenzia v Rubia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/55-cenzia-v-rubia 1/14



However, three months lapsed before respondentinformed them that it was already filed in court. It wasthen that they received a copy of the complaint with "CivilCase No. 4198" and a rubber stamped "RECEIVED"thereon. However, when complainant verified the statusof the case with the Clerk of Court of the Regional TrialCourt of Davao del Sur, she was informed that no casewith said title and docket number was filed. 2

Further, complainant alleged that respondent was guiltyof gross ignorance of the law for intending to file thecomplaint in Davao del Sur when the properties to berecovered were located in Koronadal, South Cotabatoand Malungon, Sarangani Province, in violation of therule on venue that real actions shall be filed in the placewhere the property is situated. Complainant also allegedthat respondent forged the signature of her husband,Carlito C. Ceniza, in the Affidavit of Loss attached to apetition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicatecertificate of title filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)of Digos City, Branch 20, in Misc. Case No. 114-2202. 3 ECHSDc

In her comment, respondent assailed the personality ofthe complainant to institute the administrative complaintfor disbarment as she was not a party to the action forpartition and recovery of ownership/possession. As such,her allegations in the administrative complaint were allhearsay, self-serving and unsubstantiated. Further, thecharge of forgery of the Affidavit of Loss was belied bythe March 3, 2003 decision of the trial court, whereinCarlito C. Ceniza affirmed his statements in the saidaffidavit when he was called to testify. 4

On February 2, 2004, the Court resolved to refer the



case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) forinvestigation, report and recommendation.

On April 29, 2004, respondent filed a Supplemental

Comment explaining the rubber stamped "RECEIVED"on the complaint. According to her, when her staff JanKirt Lester Soledad was at the RTC Office of the Clerk ofCourt, she called him through cellular phone and directedhim to stop the filing of the complaint as the same lackedcertain attachments. However, one copy thereof wasalready stamped "RECEIVED" by the receiving courtpersonnel, who also assigned a docket number. She keptthe copies of the complaint, including the one with thestamp, to be filed later when the attachments arecomplete.

Meanwhile, on November 7, 2005, respondent filed aManifestation with Urgent Motion praying that theadministrative complaint be likewise dismissed in view ofthe dismissal of the criminal case due to complainant's

apparent lack of interest to prosecute.

On January 19, 2007, the IBP InvestigatingCommissioner recommended that respondent be foundguilty of falsification of public document and be meted thepenalty of suspension from the practice of law for aperiod of three years. The report reads in part, as follows:

A proceeding for suspension or disbarment isnot in any sense a civil action, where thecomplainant is a plaintiff and the respondentlawyer is a defendant. It involved no privateinterest. The complainant or person whocalled the attention of the court to theattorney's misconduct is in no sense a party



and has generally no interest in its outcomeexcept as all good citizens may have in theproper administration of justice. It affords noredress for private grievance. ( Tejan v. Cusi, 57 SCRA 154)

Prescinding from the aforequoted ruling, it istherefore irrelevant and immaterial if hereincomplainant is not a party to the subject civilcomplaint prepared by the respondent. Acase of suspension or disbarment mayproceed regardless of interest or lack ofinterest of the complainant. What matters iswhether on the basis of the facts borne out bythe record, the charge has been proven. ASEIDH

On the payment of the acceptance fee in theamount of P32,000.00, respondent'scontention that she acted as guarantor ofCarlos Ceniza, complainant's husband, whenhe borrowed money from a money lender,

Domingo Natavio, the amount representingthe acceptance, does not inspire belief. Thepromissory note dated May 3, 2002,appended as Annex "A" of the complaint-affidavit eloquently shows that consistent withthe complainant's allegation, she was madeto borrow said amount to be paid asrespondent's acceptance fee. It bears stress

that the date of the promissory note is thesame date when respondent's services wereengaged leading to the preparation of thesubject civil complaint. Complainant'sallegation is further enhanced by the fact thatsuch promissory note was even notarized by



the respondent.

On the alleged filing of the subject civilcomplaint, it is undisputed that the same was

not filed before the Office of the Clerk ofCourt, RTC Davao Del Sur, as evidenced bya Certification from the said office appendedas Annex "A" of complainant's Manifestationdated October 14, 2005. Thus, the claim ofcomplainant that respondent falsified orcaused it to falsify the stamp markedreceived dated May 10, 2002 including thecase number "4198", finds factual and legalbases.

It bears stress that a copy of the subject civilcomplaint was obtained by complainant fromthe respondent herself who tried to impressupon the former that contrary to hersuspicion, the subject civil complaint wasalready filed in court. However, inquiry made

by the complainant shows otherwise.

Respondent's contention that after one copyof the complaint was already stamped bycourt personnel in preparation for receivingthe same and entering in the court's docket,she caused it to be withdrawn after realizingthat the same lacked certain attachments, isbereft of merit.

In the first place, respondent miserably failedto mention these lacking attachments thatallegedly caused the withdrawal of thecomplaint. Secondly, and assuming arguendothat the withdrawal was due to lacking



attachments, how come the same was notfiled in the next office day complete withattachments. And lastly, the Certification ofthe Clerk of Court clearly states that CivilCase No. 4188 is not the case of MercedesCallejo vda. De Ceniza, et al. vs. CharlotteCeniza, et al.

xxx xxx xxx

The fact that the City Prosecutor's Office ofDigos, upon motion for reconsideration of therespondent, dismissed a similar complaintfiled by herein complainant will not in anywayaffect the above captioned administrativecomplaint. TIDHCc

The pendency of a criminal action against therespondent, from the facts of which thedisciplinary proceeding is predicated, doesnot pose prejudicial question to the resolutionof the issues in the disbarment case. ( Calovs. Degano, 20 SCRA 447) His conviction isnot necessary to hold the lawyeradministratively liable because the twoproceedings and their objectives are differentand it is not sound public policy to await thefinal resolution of a criminal case before thecourt act on a complaint against a lawyer as itmay emasculate the disciplinary power of thecourt. (In re Brillantes, 76 SCRA 1) Nor is hisacquittal, by this fact alone, a bar to anadministrative complaint against him. ( Piattvs. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350).

The other allegations in the complaint about



ignorance of the law are found to be withoutbasis.

RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfullyrecommended that herein respondent Atty.Vivian C. Rubia, be found guilty of the chargeof falsification of public document and bemeted the penalty of suspension from thepractice of law for a period of three (3) years.

On May 31, 2007, the Board of Governors of the IBP

issued a Resolution adopting the InvestigatingCommissioner's recommendation with modification, asfollows:

RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2007-237

Adm. Case No. 6166

Maria Earl Beverly C.Ceniza vs.

Atty. Vivian G. Rubia

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as itis hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, withmodification , the Report andRecommendation of the Investigating

Commissioner of the above-entitled case,herein made part of this Resolution as Annex"A"; and finding the recommendation fullysupported by the evidence on record and theapplicable laws and rules, and consideringRespondent's falsification of public



document, Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is herebyDISBARRED .

However, in its December 11, 2008 Resolution, the

Board of Governors reconsidered its May 31, 2007Resolution by reducing the recommended penalty ofdisbarment to five years suspension from the practice oflaw, thus:

RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2008-715

Adm. Case No. 6166

Maria Earl Beverly C.Ceniza vs.

Atty. Vivian G. Rubia

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as itis hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED theRecommendation of the Board of Governors

First Division of the above-entitled case,herein made part of this Resolution as Annex"A"; and, finding the recommendation fullysupported by the evidence on record and theapplicable laws and rules, the Motion forReconsideration is hereby DENIED withmodification , that Resolution RESOLUTIONNO. XVII-2007-237 of the Board ofGovernors dated 31 May 2007recommending the Disbarment of Atty. VivianG. Rubia is reduced to Five (5) yearsSuspension from the practice of law. AEHCDa

On April 20, 2009, the IBP forwarded the instant case to



this Court as provided under Rule 139-B, Section 12 (b)of the Rules of Court.

Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent from

the practice of law for gross misconduct, ignorance of thelaw and for falsification of public document. In disbarmentproceedings, the burden of proof rests upon thecomplainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinarypowers, the case against the respondent must beestablished by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.Considering the serious consequence of the disbarmentor suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court hasconsistently held that clear preponderant evidence isnecessary to justify the imposition of the administrativepenalty. 5

The sole issue in this case is whether or not there ispreponderant evidence to warrant the imposition ofadministrative sanction against the respondent.

In accusing respondent of falsification of publicdocument, complainant alleged that respondentmisrepresented to her that the complaint was alreadyfiled in court, when in fact, upon verification with the RTCClerk of Court, it was not. Such misrepresentation isshown by the copy of the complaint with a stamped"RECEIVED" and docket number thereon. Apart fromsaid allegations, complainant has not proferred any proof

tending to show that respondent deliberately falsified apublic document.

A perusal of the records shows that complainant'sevidence consists solely of her Affidavit-Complaint andthe annexes attached therewith. She did not appear in all





However, we find that respondent committed some actsfor which she should be disciplined or administrativelysanctioned.

We find nothing illegal or reprehensible in respondent'sact of charging an acceptance fee of P32,000.00, whichamount appears to be reasonable under thecircumstances. The impropriety lies in the fact that shesuggested that complainant borrow money from DomingoNatavio for the payment thereof. This act impresses uponthe Court that respondent would do nothing to the causeof complainant's mother-in-law unless payment of theacceptance fee is made. Her duty to render legalservices to her client with competence and diligenceshould not depend on the payment of acceptance fee,which was in this case promised to be paid upon thearrival of complainant's mother-in-law in June 2002, orbarely a month after respondent accepted the case.

Respondent's transgression is compounded further when

she severed the lawyer-client relationship due tooverwhelming workload demanded by her new employerNakayama Group of Companies, which constrained herto return the money received as well as the records ofthe case, thereby leaving her client with norepresentation. Standing alone, heavy workload is notsufficient reason for the withdrawal of her services.

Moreover, respondent failed to maintain an open line ofcommunication with her client regarding the status oftheir complaint.

Clearly, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath whichimposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay



no man for money or malice, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 ofCanon 18, and Canon 22 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility, thus:

CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVEHIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE ANDDILIGENCE.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect alegal matter entrusted to him and hisnegligence in connection therewith shall

render him liable.

Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the clientinformed of the status of his case and shallrespond within a reasonable time to theclient's request for information.

CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALLWITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR

GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

HDcaAI

When a lawyer accepts to handle a case, whether for afee or gratis et amore, he undertakes to give his utmostattention, skill and competence to it, regardless of itssignificance. Thus, his client, whether rich or poor, hasthe right to expect that he will discharge his duties

diligently and exert his best efforts, learning and ability toprosecute or defend his (client's) cause with reasonabledispatch. Failure to fulfill his duties will subject him tograve administrative liability as a member of the Bar. Forthe overriding need to maintain the faith and confidenceof the people in the legal profession demands that an



erring lawyer should be sanctioned. 6

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty.Vivian G. Rubia is found GUILTY of violation of Rule

18.03 and Canon 22 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED fromthe practice of law for six (6) months effectiveimmediately, with a warning that similar infractions in thefuture will be dealt with more severely.

Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, benotified of this Decision, and be it duly recorded in thepersonal file of respondent Atty. Vivian G. Rubia.

SO ORDERED .

Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Peralta, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-5.

2. Id. p. 4.

3. Id. p. 5.

4. Id. pp. 18-23.

5. Berbano v. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331, 341 (2003).

6. De Guzman v. Basa, A.C. No. 5554, June 29, 2004, 433SCRA 1, 3.



© 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Click here for our Disclaimer and CopyrightNotice

Documents

55 Cenzia v Rubia