SECOND DIVISION

CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ,
A.C. No. 7084
Complainant, Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.
NACHURA,* and
BRION, JJ.

versus -

Promulgated:
February 27, 2009
ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE
RAMOS-VILLALON,
Respondent.
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
BRION, J.:

For our resolution is this administrative case filed by complainant Conrado

G. Fernandez (Fernandez) against Atty. Maria Angelica P. De Ramos-Villalon
(Atty. Villalon). The complainant was the respondent in Civil Case No. 05-1017, in
which Carlos O. Palacios (Palacios) sought to nullify a Deed of Donation he
purportedly executed in favor of Fernandez.[1] The respondent in this administrative
action, Atty. Villalon, was Palacios counsel in the early part of the case; she
withdrew from the case after her appointment as prosecutor of Quezon City.[2]

A brief summary of Civil Case No. 05-1017 is in order to put this

administrative complaint in proper context.

Palacios, in his Complaint in Civil Case No. 05-1017, alleged that he was
the owner of a lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 178587
located in Barangay San Lorenzo, Makati City.[3] He allegedly inherited the lot
from his mother. Sometime in June 2004, he became aware that his lot was being
eyed by a land-grabbing syndicate. The syndicate attempted to obtain a copy of
TCT No. 178587 by pretending to be Carlos Palacios, Jr., and by filing a Petition
for Judicial Reconstitution of Lost Owners Duplicate Original Copy of TCT No.
178587. The petition was docketed as LRC Case No. M-4524.[4]

Palacios received information that Fernandez could help him oppose the
syndicates petition. Thus, Palacios approached Fernandez, and they eventually
succeeded in causing the withdrawal of LRC Case No. M-4524, with the assistance
of a certain Atty. Augusto P. Jimenez, Jr.. Palacios allegedly agreed to pay
Fernandez P2,000,000.00 for the services he rendered in LRC Case No. M-4524.

On September 27, 2005, when Palacios visited the Village Administrator of

the San Lorenzo Village Association, he bumped into Mrs. Jocelyn Lirio who
expressed her interest in Palacios San Lazaro property. She had heard it was being
sold by Fernandez.Palacios was surprised by Mrs. Lirios story, as he had no
intention of selling the property. Upon investigation, he discovered that Fernandez
had falsified a Deed of Donation that he (Palacios) purportedly executed in
Fernandez favor. This Deed was duly registered, and on the strength of the

purported donation, TCT No. 178587 in Palacios name was cancelled, and a new
TCT (TCT No. 220869) was issued in Fernandez name.

Palacios then employed the services of respondent Atty. Villalon to file a

Complaint for the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Donation that became the
basis for the issuance of a title in Fernandez name. [5] This complaint was
subsequently amended to implead Romeo Castro, Atty. Augusto P. Jimenez, Jr.,
Levy R. De Dios, and Rosario T. Abobo.[6]

In his Answer, Fernandez claimed that the transfer of title in his name was
proper on account of an existing Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 12,
2005 between him and Palacios. He also alleged that it was Palacios who falsified
a Deed of Donation by forging their signatures and having it notarized; [7] Palacios
did this in order to cheat the government by paying only the donors tax, which was
lower than the capital gains tax he would have paid had the transaction been
represented as a sale. He additionally alleged that Palacios intended to falsify the
Deed of Donation in order to have a ground for the annulment of the new TCT
issued in favor of Fernandez and, ultimately, to recover the property.
On March 2, 2006, Fernandez filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Villalon for violation of Rule 1.01,[8] Rule 7.03,[9] Rule 10.01,[10] Rule 10.02,[11] and
Rule 10.03[12] of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.[13] Fernandez alleged
that Atty. Villalon, acting as Palacios counsel, deceitfully:
1. suppressed and excluded in the Original and Amended Complaint her
knowledge about the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January
12, 2005;
2. used the fake and spurious Deed of Donation to deceive the court into trying
Civil Case No. 05-1071, the action for the annulment of TCT No. 220869,
despite her knowledge of the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale;

3. committed misrepresentations as follows: to verify whether the attached

Deed of Absolute Sale was properly notarized, the respondent Villalon
personally inquired before the notarial section of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City thru a letter-request, whether a record of the deed
existed in the said office; in the letter-request, the respondent misrepresented
that there was already a pending case in the RTC of Makati before
November 9, 2005;
4. refused to receive the complainants Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim
so that she could file on behalf of her client an Amended Complaint without
leave of court and without presenting the Deed of Absolute Sale;
5. induced her witness Agnes Heredia (Heredia) to sign a false Affidavit by
telling her that it would only be for purposes of compelling Fernandez to pay
additional sums to her client; however, Atty. Villalon used it as evidence to
frame the complainant Fernandez for her own personal gain;
6. only submitted the Deed of Donation for signature examination and
certification by the NBI and intentionally failed to submit the Deed of
Absolute Sale.[14]

The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.

On January

30,

2008,

Commissioner

Dennis

A.B.

Funa

(Commissioner Funa) issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case,

which in part reads:
There is no sufficient basis to hold respondent accountable for failure to mention
in the Complaint and Amended Complaint the existence of the January 12 Deed
of Absolute Sale. No such duty is imposed upon the legal counsel under any law
or the Rules of Court. This Commissioner agrees with respondents argument that
only the clients operative facts and not the other evidentiary facts need to be
included in the Complaint. It is correct for the respondent to argue that pointing
out the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute Sale was a matter of
defense which the defendant in said civil case can freely point out to the trial
judge through his own pleadings.
It cannot be argued that there was suppression of evidence on the part of the
respondent as she is not the only person who had access or possession of the said
Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document readily available to the general public
through the Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was fully known

to herein complainant as he was supposed to be a party to the said Deed of

Absolute Sale. In other words, a person cannot possibly suppress the existence
of a document which everyone else, especially the opposing party-litigant,
knows about.
Furthermore, it is noted that while the letter to the Notarial Office was dated
November 9, it was actually received by said office only on November 14, 2005.
The civil Complaint was filed on November 15, or on the next day. We take note
that there is no indication when the Notarial Officeformally replied to the
respondents letter inquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that
respondent acquired knowledge about the Deed of Absolute Sale on November
14 or November 15.
We also take note that assuming the respondent had knowledge about (sic) the
existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale before the civil complaint was filed, her
role as the legal counsel is limited by the clients choice of cause of action.
Moreover, its mere existence as a document is not an affirmation of its validity or
due execution. In other words, the client, possibly believing in the invalidity of
the Deed of Absolute Sale, may have chosen to refute the validity of the document
at a later time when and if its existence is raised. This is a choice within the
discretion of the party-litigant. The opposing party cannot impose it as a duty
upon the other party or his legal counsel. There is, therefore, no sufficient factual
basis to hold respondent accountable in this charge. As it turns out, respondents
client claims no consideration was ever given for the Deed of Absolute Sale and is
consequently arguing that said Deed is void.
As for the accusation that respondent committed misrepresentation in her
November 9 letter by stating that a case had already been filed when in truth no
such case is yet pending, we take note that assuming a misrepresentation was
committed, such act does not attain a degree of materiality or gravity so as to
attribute evil malice on the part of respondent. The intent on the part of
respondent remains the same, that is, to obtain relevant information. We cannot
attribute any evil deception in the said letter considering the surrounding facts
especially since a civil complaint was in fact filed the very next day the letter was
sent.
As for the accusation that respondent refused or failed to receive registered mail
matters, such has not been factually substantiated. The same goes with the
accusation that respondents failed to furnish herein complainants lawyer with a
copy of the Amended Complaint.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not commit any
act for which she should be disciplined or administratively sanctioned.
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED for lack of merit.[15]

Before this Court, Fernandez filed a Petition for Review raising the following
issues:

1. whether Commissioner Funa committed grave abuse of discretion in

recommending the dismissal of the disbarment case against the Respondent;
2. whether Commissioner Funa committed grave abuse of discretion in failing
to resolve the matter regarding the affidavit of Heredia, in which she
retracted her affidavit in Civil Case No. 05-1017 and further said that the
respondent induced her to issue a false affidavit by telling her that the said
affidavit would only be used to compel Fernandez to pay additional sums to
Palacios.

THE COURTS RULING

We agree with the recommendation of IBP Commissioner Funa. The charges

against the respondent do not constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment.

A lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to be truthful in all his dealings.
[16]

However, this duty does not require that the lawyer advance matters of defense

on behalf of his or her clients opponent. A lawyer is his or her clients advocate;
while duty-bound to utter no falsehood, an advocate is not obliged to build the case
for his or her clients opponent.

The respondents former client, Palacios, approached her to file a complaint for
the annulment of the Deed of Donation. This was the cause of action chosen by
her client. Assuming arguendo that the respondent knew of the presence of the
Deed of Absolute Sale, its existence, is, indeed, a matter of defense for Fernandez.
We cannot fault the respondent for choosing not to pursue the nullification of the
Deed of Absolute Sale. The respondent alleged that her former client, Palacios,
informed her that the Deed of Absolute Sale was void for lack of consideration.

Furthermore, unlike the Deed of Donation, the Deed of Absolute Sale was not
registered in the Registry of Deeds and was not the basis for the transfer of
title of Palacios property to Fernandez. Under the circumstances, it was not
unreasonable for a lawyer to conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the
Deed of Absolute Sale was immaterial in achieving the ultimate goal the recovery
of Palacios property.

On the second issue, the petitioner complains that Commissioner Funa failed
to consider Heredias affidavit of retraction. [17]As a rule, we view retractions with
caution; they can be bought and obtained through threats, intimidation, or
monetary consideration.[18] The better rule is to examine them closely by
considering the original, the new statements and the surrounding circumstances,
based on the rules of evidence.[19]
The petitioner raised the retraction for the first time in his Supplemental
to (sic) Reply to Comment filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant on November
10, 2006.[20] The petitioner attached Heredias affidavit of December 11, 2005 and
her affidavit of retraction.

In her affidavit of December 11, 2005, Heredia attested that: 1) Palacios

sought her help when a syndicate attempted to grab his land; 2) she referred
Palacios to the group of Castro, Fernandez, and Jimenez who were then helping her
with her own legal problems; 3) she regretted having referred Palacios to this
group as she herself was later victimized by the group; 4) they made her sign blank
papers after gaining her trust and confidence, which signed blanks the group later
filled up to make it appear that they bought and paid for her real property; 5) she
terminated the services of this group sometime in April 2005; 6) she only recently

came to know of this groups modus operandi; and 7) Palacios eventually became
one of the groups victims.

In her affidavit of retraction, Heredia basically averred that the statements in the
affidavit of December 11, 2005 were prepared by Villalon who asked her, in the
presence of Palacios, to sign the affidavit; that the affidavit contained lies which
she rejected outright, but Palacios and the respondent convinced her that they
would only use the affidavit to convince Fernandez to give additional sums of
money for Palacios property; that Palacios admitted getting a motorcyle from
Fernandez; that Palacios had been paid not less thanP6,000,000.00 for his property;
that the respondent and Palacios used her affidavit in the cases they filed against
Fernandez; that this violated their agreement that the affidavit would only be used
in their negotiations to get more money for the property; that Palacios admitted to
her that he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with Fernandez; that the execution of
the Deed of Donation was his idea; that Palacios had Fernandez signature in the
Deed of Donation forged and was regretting having done so because Fernandez
filed various charges, including perjury, against him; that she executed the affidavit
of retraction in the interest of justice, to tell the truth about the circumstances
surrounding the affidavit of December 11, 2005, to clear her name, to show that
she is not part of the lies concocted by Atty. Villalon and Palacios, and to correct
the wrong that was done by the affidavit of December 11, 2005 to the persons of
Conrado Fernandez, Romeo Castro, and Atty. Augusto Jimenez, Jr.

In the Mandatory Conference and Hearing held on July 4, 2007,

Commissioner Funa asked the respondent, through counsel, whether she wanted to
cross-examine Heredia regarding her affidavit of retraction. [21] The respondent
passed up the chance for a direct confrontation and opted to adopt her comment as
her position paper. In the position paper she submitted on January 14, 2008, she

attacked the credibility of Heredias affidavit of retraction. She posited that Heredia
contradicted herself when she said that she rejected the pre-prepared contents of
the first affidavit outright but still signed it; that Heredias claim that she had been
hoodwinked into signing the first affidavit because she was assured that it was a
mere scrap of paper, was unbelievable; and that Heredia failed to rebut her earlier
statement that she regretted having referred Fernandez group to Palacios because
she herself fell victim to the group.

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant.

[22]

Considering the gravity of the penalty of disbarment or suspension as a member

of the Bar, a lawyer may only be disbarred or suspended if there is clear,

convincing, and satisfactory proof that he or she committed transgressions defined
by the rules as grounds to strip him or her of his professional license.[23]

In this case, we find no clear evidence we can satisfactorily accept showing that the
respondent improperly induced Heredia to sign the affidavit of December 11, 2005,
as alleged in Heredias affidavit of retraction.

First, the original affidavit and the retraction stand uncorroborated by any
other evidence and, in our view, stand on the same footing. Neither affidavit
provides clear, convincing and satisfactory proof of what they allege. They cannot
therefore stand as meritorious basis for an accusation against the respondent.

Second, the allegations in both sworn statements are so contradictory that we

can only conclude that Heredia had grossly lied in either or even in both
instruments. We find it incredible that Heredia, as stated in her affidavit of

retraction, vehemently rejected the statements in the first affidavit, but nevertheless
agreed to sign it because it would only be used to aid Palacios in his negotiations
with Fernandez. Effectively, she admitted in her retraction that she had lied under
oath and entered into a conspiracy to extract additional funds from Fernandez who
would not have accepted the demand if they were falsely made. Why she did what
she said she did is not at all clear from her retraction, which itself was not
convincingly clear on why she was retracting. For this Court to accept a retraction
that raises more questions than answers, made by a witness of doubtful credibility
allegedly for the sake of truth, is beyond the limits of what this Court can accept.

In these lights, the retraction has no particular relevance so that the

Commissioners failure to consider it would matter.

WHEREFORE, the complaint for Disbarment is hereby ordered DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.