108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

*
Adm. Case No. 5161. April 14, 2004.

ISIDRA TING-DUMALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO S.

TORRES, respondent.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyer’s Oath; The Lawyer’s Oath, to which

all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to
the pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law
to be forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a
sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.—We
fully agree with the Investigating Commissioner in her findings of facts and
conclusion of culpability. The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that
he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable
fraternity of the legal profession. In his long years as a lawyer, he must have
forgotten his sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once again that the Court
inculcate in the hearts of all lawyers that pledge; thus: “LAWYER’S OATH:
I, .........................., do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. SO HELP ME GOD.” This oath to which
all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to
the pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law
to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a
sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By
swearing the lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of
law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice.
This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Same; Same; Disbarment; Dishonesty; Falsification; Where, instead of
advising another to secure a written special power of attorney and against
committing falsification, a lawyer presented such document to the Registry
of Deeds to secure a new title for the lot in favor of said person and said
lawyer’s wife, the lawyer himself may also be held liable for knowingly
using a falsified document to the damage of the complainant and her other
co-heirs.—It also bears noting that the respondent was consulted regarding
the falsification of complainant’s signature in the Extrajudicial Set-

_______________

* EN BANC.

109

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 109

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

tlement dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603, which contains a

purported waiver by the complainant of her right over the property.
Marcelina admitted that she signed complainant’s name in that document.
Such act of counterfeiting the complainant’s signature to make it appear that
the complainant had participated in the execution of that document is
tantamount to falsification of a public document. Instead of advising
Marcelina to secure a written special power of attorney and against
committing falsification, he presented such document to the Registry of
Deeds to secure a new title for the lot in favor of Marcelina and his wife. He
himself, therefore, may also be held liable for knowingly using a falsified
document to the damage of the complainant and her other co-heirs. Notably,
he also admitted in an affidavit dated 22 May 1995 that he prepared the
legal documents for the transfer of Lot 1603.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A lawyer is the servant of the law and
belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of
law and the dispensation of justice—he should make himself more an
exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.—Respondent did not advise his
wife and his sisters-in-law from doing acts which are contrary to law. He
must have kept in mind the first and foremost duty of a lawyer, which is to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the
Constitution, and obey the laws of the land. The Code of Professional
Responsibility underscores the primacy of such duty by providing as its
canon that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land,
and promote respect for law and legal processes. For a lawyer is the servant
of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the
administration of law and the dispensation of justice. As such, he should
make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate. He should not,
therefore, engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. He
makes himself unfit to remain in the profession who commits any such
unbecoming act or conduct.
Same; Same; Same; Same; False Testimony; A lawyer, in knowingly
offering in evidence a false testimony, may himself be punished as guilty of
false testimony.—The respondent allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by
giving false testimony in court, and he never corrected the same despite full
knowledge of the true facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, in
knowingly offering in evidence such false testimony, he himself may be
punished as guilty of false testimony. Moreover, under Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and
good faith to the court. He shall “not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by
any artifice.” This Rule was clearly and openly violated by the respondent
when he permitted Marcelina to falsely testify that she had no sib-

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

lings aside from Felicisima and when he offered such testimony in the
petition for reconstitution of the title involving Lot 1605.
Same; Same; Same; Misconduct; Any act on the part of a lawyer that
obstructs and impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct
and justifies disciplinary action against him.—The respondent must have
forgotten that as an attorney he is an officer of the court called upon to assist
in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to
advance its cause. For this reason, any act on his part that obstructs and
impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him.
Same; Same; Same; The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.—
In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an erring
lawyer, we take into account the primary purpose of disciplinary
proceedings, which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring
that those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable, and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence. While the assessment of what sanction may be imposed is
primarily addressed to our sound discretion, the sanction should neither be
arbitrary or despotic, nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice.
Rather, it should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously
guard the purity and independence of the bar. Thus, the supreme penalty of
disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the bar. We will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from
the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. Verily,
given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case, we find that
respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the severance of his privilege to
practice law for life, and we therefore adopt the penalty recommended by
the Investigating Commissioner.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Presentation

of False Testimony, Participation in, Consent to, and Failure to
Adduce Against, the Forgery of Complainant’s Signature, and Gross
Misrepresentation.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Tagoc Law Office for complainant.

111

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 111

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

R E S O LU T I O N

PER CURIAM:
1
In a Complaint-Affidavit filed on 22 October 1999 with this Court,
complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando
S. Torres with presentation of false testimony; participation in,
consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of
complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of
profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer
and the canons of legal and judicial ethics.
The complainant is one of the six children of the late spouses
Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting. Her siblings are Marcelina T.
Rivera; Miriam T. Saria; Felicisima T. Torres, who is married to
herein respondent; Vicente Ting, Jr.; and Eliseo Ting. Their parents
died intestate and left several parcels of land, to wit:

a) One half of Lot 1586 of the San Francisco de Malabon

Estate, containing an area of 43,908 square meters more or
less, and covered at that time by TCT No. (T-6203) RT-
19151 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite;
b) Lot 1603 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate,
containing an area of 16,073 square meters, more or less,
and covered at that time by TCT No. (T-6425) RT-7688 of
the Registry of Deeds of Cavite;
 c) Lot 1605 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate,
containing an area of 22,131 square meters, more or less
and covered at that time by TCT No. T-1869 of the Registry
of Deeds of Cavite.

According to the complainant, the respondent took advantage of his

relationship with her and her brothers and used his profession to
deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if it involved the
commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. She attributes to
the respondent the following acts or omissions:

1. The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to

advise against, the perjury committed by his wife
Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when they executed
a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11
Novem-ber 1986, wherein the two made it appear that they
were the

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 1-4.

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente

Ting, knowing fully well that the same was false. He
presented that document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite
for the transfer of the title over Lot No. 1586 in the names
of his wife and Miriam. The lot was later sold to Antel
Holdings Inc. for P1,195,400. Payment was already made
to, and received by, Felicisima and Miriam.
2. The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to
advise against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a
purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17 March
1995 involving Lot 1603 when he knew that she was in
Italy at that time working as an overseas contract worker.
He even presented the falsified document to the Register of
Deeds of Cavite to transfer the title over the property in
favor of his wife Felicisima and sister-in-law Marcelina.
The forgery or falsification was made to enable them to sell
Lot 1603 to Antel Holdings, Inc. Payment was received and
misappropriated by Felicisima and Marcelina.
3. In LRC Rec. No. 5964 entitled In Re Petition for Judicial
Reconstitution of the Original Copy and Owner’s Duplicate
Copy of TCT No. T-1869 Covering Lot No. 1605 of the
 Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, filed by
complainant’s sisters Marcelina and Felicisima on 24
October 1995, the respondent made gross misrepresentation
and offered false testimony to the effect that Marcelina and
Felicisima are the only children and legal heirs of the late
spouses Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for the purpose of
obtaining a new title in their names. With the reconstituted
title, and with the express conformity of the respondent,
Felicisima and Marcelina were able to sell Lot 1605 to
Antel Holdings, Inc., for P2,213,100 and profited from the
sale to the exclusion of their other siblings. Partial payment
was even received pending the reconstitution proceedings.
4. On 20 November 1996, the respondent made gross and
false misrepresentations for the purpose of profiting
therefrom when he requested the buyer through a certain
Mrs. Ong to release the full payment for Lot 1605 under the
pretense that the order of reconstitution would be released
within a month when he knew that it would be impossible
because he presented evidence in the reconstitution case
only on

113

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 113

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

12 August 1997. To facilitate the release of the money, he even

used the stationery of the Philippine National Bank, of which he
was an employee.
2
In his Comment, the respondent denies the allegations of the
complaint and asserts that he did not take advantage of his
profession to deprive any of the coheirs of his wife of the estate left
by his parents-in-law.
Insofar as Lot 1586 is concerned, the respondent affirms that
Felicisima and Miriam were not motivated by any desire to solely
profit from the sale. Neither can he be faulted by the execution of the
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17 March 1995 involving
Lot 1603 because he had no part in the execution of the document.
All the while he believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had
already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. If ever
complainant’s signature was affixed on that document, it was done
in good faith.
The respondent admits that he was the counsel of Marcelina Ting
Rivera, et al., in LRC Case No. 5964 for the reconstitution of TCT
No. T-1869. The false testimony of Marcelina in that case that she
and Felicisima were the only children of spouses Vicente Ting and
Julita Reynante could not be faulted on him because such was a
clear oversight. Moreover, the sale of Lot 1605 to Antel Holdings,
Inc., was the decision of Marcelina and his wife. His conformity
through his signature was pro forma because the property was a
paraphernal property of Marcelina and his wife. Anent his alleged
gross and false misrepresentation that the order of reconstitution
would be released by the end of November 1996, suffice it to say
that the assurance was made by the Clerk of Court, Mr. Rosauro
Morabe. Besides, petitions for reconstitution are usually uncontested
and granted by courts.
Finally, the respondent believes that complainant intended to
harass him in bombarding him with numerous lawsuits, i.e., this
administrative case; Civil Case No. TM-855 for “Annulment of
Documents, Titles, and Reconveyance plus Damages”; and a
criminal case for Estafa and Falsification of Public Documents.
In her reply, the complainant denies the presence of toka or
verbal will allegedly made by her mother and allegedly implemented

_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 47-51.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

by their eldest brother Eliseo in view of the following

circumstances: (1) her mother met a sudden death in 1967; and
partition of the properties in total disregard of their father was
morally reprehensible, since the latter was still alive; (2) when their
mother died, four of the siblings were still minors including
respondent’s wife herself; (3) on 5 February 2000, Eliseo wrote his
siblings, in response to the previous letter of Felicisima, Marcelina,
and Miriam, denying the existence of a toka. She further states that
the respondent was not merely a passive onlooker but, as he
admitted, the administrator of the properties of the Ting spouses.
On 14 June 2000, this Court referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) 3
for investigation, report, and
recommendation or decision.
On 9 January 2003, after due hearing and consideration of the
issues presented by both parties, Investigating Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP found the actuations of the respondent to be violative of Rules
1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Thus she recommended
4
that the
respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.

5
 5
In its Resolution No. XV-2003-333 of 21 June 2003, the Board
of Governors of the IBP approved and adopted Commissioner San
Juan’s report, but reduced the penalty to suspension from the
practice of law for six years.
We fully agree with the Investigating Commissioner in her
findings of facts and conclusion of culpability. The respondent has
sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to
remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal
profession. In his long years as a lawyer, he must have forgotten his
sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once again that the Court
inculcate in the hearts of all lawyers that pledge; thus:

_______________

3 Rollo, 209.
4 Per the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline; Rollo, unpaginated.
5 Notice of Resolution signed by Jaime M. Vibar, National Secretary, IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline Board of Governors; Rollo, unpaginated.

115

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 115

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

LAWYER’S OATH

I, .......................... , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the

Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.
SO HELP ME GOD.

This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement

to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a mere
ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards;
nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers
must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By swearing the
lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as6
well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice.
This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 1—A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02—A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
...
CANON 7—A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
...
Rule 7.03—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
...

_______________

6 Radjaie v. Alovera, A.C. No. 4748, 4 August 2000, 337 SCRA 244, 255-256.

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

CANON 10—A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by
any artifice.

All of these underscore the role of a lawyer as the vanguard of our

legal system. When the respondent took the oath as a member of the
legal profession, he made a solemn promise to so stand by his
pledge. In this covenant, respondent miserably failed. The records
show that Felicisima and Miriam stated in the Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate dated 11 November 1986 that they are the
children of Julita Reynante and thus adjudicated only between
7
them
Lot No. 1586 to the exclusion of their other siblings. There was
concealment of the fact that there were other compulsory heirs to the
estate of the deceased. Significantly, the respondent is the brother-in-
law of complainant. Being married to complainant’s sister, he knew
of his wife’s siblings. In fact, he declared that the complainant
8
stayed with them while she was in the Philippines. Yet, the
respondent presented that document to the Register of Deeds of
General Trias, Cavite, to effect the transfer of the title of the lot in
question in the name of his wife and his sister-in-law Miriam.
9
It also bears noting that the respondent was consulted regarding
the falsification of complainant’s signature in the Extrajudicial
10
Settlement dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603, which
contains a purported waiver by the complainant of her right over the
property. Marcelina
11
admitted that she signed complainant’s name in
that document. Such act of counterfeiting the complainant’s
signature to make it appear that the complainant had participated in
the execution of 12that document is tantamount to falsification of a
public document.
Instead of advising Marcelina to secure a written special13 power
of attorney and against committing falsification, he presented

_______________

7 Exhibit “L,” Rollo, 43.

8 TSN, 25 September 2001, pp. 76-78.
9 TSN, 30 May 2002, pp. 20-21.
10 Art. 172(1), in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.
11 TSN, 4 April 2002, 37-38; TSN, 11 April 2002, pp. 28-29.
12 Art. 172(1), in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.
13 Exh. “L-1,” Rollo, p. 43.

117

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 117

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

such document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a new title for the
14
lot in favor of Marcelina and his wife. He himself, therefore, may
also be held liable for knowingly using a falsified15 document to the
damage of the complainant and her other co-heirs. Notably, he also
admitted in an affidavit dated 22 May 1995 16
that he prepared the
legal documents for the transfer of Lot 1603.
Respondent did not advise his wife and his sisters-in-law from
doing acts which are contrary to law. He must have kept in mind the
first and foremost duty of a lawyer, which is to maintain allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution, and obey
the laws of the land. The Code of Professional Responsibility
underscores the primacy of such duty by providing as its canon that
a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the 17laws of the land,
and promote respect for law and legal processes. For a lawyer is
the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society
has entrusted
18
the administration of law and the dispensation of
justice. As such,19he should make himself more an exemplar for
others to emulate. He should not, therefore,
20
engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. He makes himself unfit to
remain in the profession who commits any such unbecoming act or
21
conduct.
Respondent’s argument that the non-declaration by his wife and
his sister-in-law Marcelina of the other siblings in LRC Rec. No.
5964 for the reconstitution of title involving Lot 1605 was a mere
oversight does not deserve credence in view of the following
circumstances: First, the petition clearly names only Felicisima and
Marcelina as the petitioners when
22
there were six siblings who were
heirs of the unpartitioned lot. Second, during the hearing of said
case when the respondent asked Marcelina whether she has broth-

_______________

14 Exh. “D-3,” Rollo, p. 40.

15 Art. 172, last paragraph, in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code.
16 Exh. “R-1,” Original Records (OR), Vol. II, p. 65.
17 Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility.
18 RUBEN E. AGPALO, LEGAL ETHICS 61 (6th ed. 1997), citing Comments of
the IBP Committee that drafted the Code of Professional Responsibility, pp. 1-2
(1980).
19 Id., p. 62.
20 Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility; Collantes v. Renomeron, A.C.
No. 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA 584.
21 In re Gutierrez, 115 Phil. 647, 651; 5 SCRA 661 (1962).
22 Exh. “J,” Rollo, p. 11.

118

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

ers and sisters other than Felicisima, the latter said none. The
transcript of that hearing reads:

ATTY. TORRES:
Q Madame Witness, are you the only child or daughter of the
deceased Sps. Vicente Ting, Jr. and Julita Reynante?
WITNESS:
A No, sir. We are two, Felicisima Torres and I.
Q Do you have other brothers and sisters?
23
A None, sir.

The respondent24 allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving

false testimony in court, and he never corrected the same despite 25
full knowledge of the true facts and circumstances of the case.
Moreover, in knowingly offering in evidence such false 26
testimony,
he himself may be punished as guilty of false testimony.
Moreover, under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the
court. He shall “not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by
27
 27
any artifice.” This Rule was clearly and openly violated by the
respondent when he permitted Marcelina to falsely testify that she
had no siblings aside from Felicisima and when he offered such
testimony in the petition for reconstitution of the title involving Lot
1605.
The respondent must have forgotten that as an attorney he is an
officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of
justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its cause.
For this reason, any act on his part that obstructs and impedes the
administration of justice constitutes
28
misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him.
It may not be amiss to mention that to further support the
reconstitution, he offered in evidence an Affidavit of Loss, which
was executed by Marcelina and notarized by him. During the
hearing of

_______________

23 Exh. “J-2,” Rollo, p. 22.

24 Art. 182, Revised Penal Code.
25 TSN, 16 May 2002, pp. 33-35.
26 Art. 184, Revised Penal Code.
27 Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility.
28 People v. Jardin, 209 Phil. 134, 142; 124 SCRA 167 (1983).

119

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 119

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

this administrative case, Marcelina admitted that her statement in

that affidavit that the title was in 29her possession was false, as she
was never in possession of the title and would not, therefore, know
that the same was lost.
Moreover, in a letter dated 20 November 1996 addressed to a
certain Mrs. Ong, the respondent requested the release of 50% of the
remaining balance for the sale of Lot 1605, relaying to Antel
Holdings, Inc., through Mrs. Ong that he was assured by the Clerk
of Court that the order directing the reconstitution30 of title for Lot
1605 would be released within the month. Respondent’s
information was misleading because he presented evidence 31
only on
12 August 1997, or almost a year after he sent the letter. Such act,
therefore, shows lack of candor and honesty on the part of the
respondent.
Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and
doubtless bring intolerable dishonor to the legal profession. They
constitute gross misconduct for which he may be disbarred or
suspended pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
which provides:

Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds

therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for
a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.

In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against

an erring lawyer, we take into account the primary purpose of
disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the administration of
justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function
shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in

_______________

29 TSN, 16 May 2002, pp. 13-23.

30 Exh. “K,” Rollo, p. 39.
31 TSN, 25 September 2001, p. 72.

120

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ting-Dumali vs. Torres

32
whom courts and clients may repose confidence. While the
assessment of what sanction may be imposed is primarily addressed
to our sound discretion, the sanction should neither be arbitrary or
despotic, nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice. Rather,
it should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously
33
guard the purity and independence of the bar.
Thus, the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the
bar. We will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the
34
esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it.
Verily, given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this
case, we find that respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the
severance of his privilege to practice law for life, and we therefore
adopt the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner.
 IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent Atty.
Rolando S. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the
lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered
DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, which shall forthwith record it in the personal files of the
respondent; all the courts of the Philippines; the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its
Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the
Republic of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Co-rona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.

Respondent disbarred for gross misconduct and violation of the

lawyer’s oath and Canons 1 and 10, Code of Professional
Responsibility.

_______________

32 In re MacDougall, 3 Phil. 70, 78 (1903).

33 In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 602.
34 Garcia v. Manuel, A.C. No. 5811, 20 January 2003, 395 SCRA 386.

121

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 121

Sitaca vs. Palomares

Notes.—By swearing the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a

guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable
instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice—a vital
function of democracy a failure of which is disastrous to society.
(Busiños vs. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 [1997])
The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof
is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
(De Guzman vs. De Dios, 350 SCRA 320 [2001])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.