THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10408. October 16, 2019.]

HERNANDO PETELO , complainant, vs. ATTY. SOCRATES RIVERA ,

respondent.

DECISION

HERNANDO , J : p

This administrative complaint stemmed from the alleged unauthorized ling by

respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera (Atty. Rivera) of a Complaint 1 for Declaration of
Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note, Certi cate of Sale and Foreclosure
Proceedings in Connection with TCT No. 455311 with Damages before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 150, captioned as Fe Mojica Petelo,
represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Hernando M. Petelo, plaintiff, versus Emmer 2
Bartolome Ramirez, World Partners Bank, and as Necessary Parties, the Register of
Deeds, Makati City and the Assessor's O ce, Makati City, defendants , and docketed
thereat as Civil Case No. 13-580.
In the said Complaint, there was a declaration that Fe Mojica Petelo (Fe), thru her
Attorney-in-Fact, Hernando Petelo (Petelo), engaged the legal services of Atty. Rivera
and that Petelo himself caused the preparation of the Complaint. 3
Upon discovery of the pendency of the Complaint, Petelo led on March 31, 2014
a Petition before this Court praying for the disbarment, suspension, or imposition of
any disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Rivera for alleged commission of acts
constituting malpractice of law, misconduct, and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Petelo narrated that sometime in 2011, his sister, Fe, who was based in
the United States of America, designated him as Attorney-in-Fact to enter into a Joint
Venture Agreement with Red Dragon Builders Corporation for the construction of a
townhouse on the lot owned by Fe, located at Brgy. Palanan, Makati City and covered by
Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. 455711. Complainant claimed that Jessie and
Fatima Manalansan, 4 the owners of Red Dragon Builders Corporation, inveigled him
into surrendering to them the original copy of TCT No. 455711 which they eventually
used as collateral for the Php8 million loan they contracted with World Partners Bank
without the knowledge and consent of Petelo. According to Petelo, the Spouses
Manalansan superimposed the name of a certain Emmer B. Ramirez to make it appear
that he was the duly constituted attorney-in-fact of Fe in the Special Power of Attorney
instead of Petelo. When the Spouses Manalansan failed to pay the monthly
amortizations, World Partners Bank instituted foreclosure proceedings against the
mortgage. During the auction sale, World Partners Bank emerged as the highest bidder
and was issued a certificate of sale over TCT No. 455711.
When Petelo got wind of the foregoing transactions, he instructed his daughter
to secure a certi ed true copy of TCT No. 455711 from the Register of Deeds of Makati
City. To his surprise, he learned that an entry of lis pendens pertaining to Civil Case No.
13-580 for Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note, Certi cate
of Sale and Foreclosure Proceedings in Connection with TCT No. 455311 with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, was annotated at
the back of the title. Upon further investigation with the RTC, Petelo found out that the
civil complaint was led by respondent Atty. Rivera purportedly on Petelo's and Fe's
behalf.
Since he never engaged the services of Atty. Rivera, Petelo wrote the latter a
letter 5 seeking clari cation/explanation as to how his services was engaged, but the
same went unheeded. Consequently, and in order to draw out Atty. Rivera, Petelo led a
Manifestation 6 with the RTC of Makati City stating that neither he nor his sister Fe
authorized Atty. Rivera to le the aforementioned case. However, Petelo's ploy to draw
out respondent Atty. Rivera was unsuccessful because the latter did not attend the
hearing on Petelo's Manifestation before the RTC. Bothered by the turn of events,
Petelo filed the instant administrative complaint charging Atty. Rivera with negligence in
the performance of his duties as a lawyer, because he did not verify the identity of the
person he was dealing with prior to the ling of the civil suit. Also, Petelo posited that if
Atty. Rivera was in good faith, he should have responded to Petelo's letter and attended
the hearing on the manifestation before the RTC. In ne, Petelo asserted that Atty.
Rivera engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
By Resolution 7 dated April 21, 2014, the Court required Atty. Rivera to le his
Comment on the complaint. Citing his busy schedule and other similar urgent pleadings
to prepare, Atty. Rivera moved for additional period of time within which to submit his
comment. 8
However, when Atty. Rivera eventually submitted his Comments, We noticed that
he committed a number of legal somersaults equivalent to the number of comments he
submitted. Stated otherwise, Atty. Rivera presented a different version each time he
submitted a comment. For example, in his Comment 9 dated July 31, 2014 led before
the Court, Atty. Rivera narrated that during the rst week of May 2013, a person
representing himself to be Hernando Petelo sought to engage his legal services
regarding the ling of the civil suit. In effect, Atty. Rivera admitted authorship of the
Complaint led before the RTC of Makati City, which a certain Hernando Petelo
supposedly caused to be prepared and led thereat. However, even after being
informed that it was not the real Petelo who caused the preparation and the ling of the
Complaint, Atty. Rivera still saw nothing wrong in what he did and even prayed for the
dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. Incidentally, he also
informed the Court that the RTC of Makati City already dismissed Civil Case No. 13-580
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the matter. Indeed, in its Order 1 0 dated May
23, 2014, the RTC of Makati City ordered the dismissal of the complaint, it being
deemed not led by the proper party in interest. Moreover, the RTC of Makati City held
that "[i]t appearing that the lawyer who signed the complaint was not authorized by the
real Hernando Petelo, the alleged Attorney-in-Fact of Fe Mojica Petelo who disowned
knowing him, then, it can be safely concluded that the lawyer who signed the pleading
violated Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court." 1 1
On August 18, 2014, the Court required Petelo to le a Reply to respondent's
Comment. 1 2 The Court, however, dispensed with the ling of the Reply by Resolution 1 3
dated July 4, 2016. At the same time, the Court referred this case to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, the
Investigating Commissioner scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing 1 4
and, likewise, required Atty. Rivera to file his Answer.
In compliance with the Order 1 5 of the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Rivera
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 led a Comment. 1 6 Perhaps forgetting that he had earlier admitted having led the
complaint in behalf of Petelo, Atty. Rivera this time presented a totally different version.
He vehemently denied any participation in the preparation and the ling of the
complaint. He even disowned the signatures a xed therein and even went to the extent
of having them labelled as forgeries; he also alleged that he never attended any of the
hearings in the said case.
Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective Position Papers. In his Position
Paper, Petelo pointed out that during one of the scheduled mandatory conferences
before the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Rivera made the following admission:
"that he learned about the case thru a disbarred lawyer, Bede Tabalingcos, 1 7 with
whom he had previous collaborations; that his details were still being used by
Tabalingcos' o ce because before, he allowed them to sign for him on 'minor'
pleadings." 1 8 When asked by the Investigating Commissioner on how he came to know
about the case, he said that he received a call from Tabalingcos' office. During the same
hearing, petitioner admitted that he remained in contact with the o ce of Tabalingcos
and that said office have been using his signature/details without his authority." 1 9
In his yet another Comment 2 0 dated June 23, 2014 led before the IBP, and
again forgetting his protestation on non-participation in the preparation and ling of the
complaint, Atty. Rivera reversed himself and reverted to his earliest version wherein he
admitted that he was the one who led the civil complaint. 2 1 Nonetheless, he
disavowed having committed any unethical conduct, and thus moved for the dismissal
of the administrative complaint. 2 2 Atty. Rivera, however, again executed another
turnabout by changing his theory in his Position Paper 2 3 when he denied any hand in
the ling of the complaint before the RTC of Makati City and claimed that the
signatures therein were forgeries.
On May 17, 2019, the Investigating Commissioner submitted his Report with
recommendation that Atty. Rivera be suspended from the practice of law for at least
one (1) year. The Investigating Commissioner gave credence to the version of Petelo
nding the same in accord with normal human experience and straightforward, while he
found the version of Atty. Rivera to have failed the test of factual consistency, common
sense and logic. The Investigating Commissioner noted the tendency of Atty. Rivera to
shift versions of his factual narrations, particularly with regard to whether he had a hand
in the ling of the complaint or not. In the end, the Investigating Commissioner
concluded that the submissions of Atty. Rivera were "factually implausible if not
outrightly erroneous." 2 4 He opined that "[t]here is no need to belabor the obvious, [that
is,] the unauthorized ling of a Civil Complaint and effecting a Notice of Lis Pendens for
and in behalf of a party is an act which constitutes, at the very least, dishonest and
deceitful conduct and at the same time an act intended to mislead a court of law." 2 5
The defense of Atty. Rivera that the ling of the complaint and the a xing of his
"signatures" therein might have been orchestrated by the staff of disbarred lawyer Bede
Tabalingcos was given short shrift because it would not serve to exculpate Atty. Rivera;
on the contrary, if given credence, it would even constitute unauthorized practice of law
proscribed under Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2 6 The
Board of Governors (BOG) of the IBP, in its Resolution 2 7 dated June 29, 2018 resolved
to adopt the ndings of the Investigating Commissioner with modi cation that Atty.
Rivera must be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year with a stern warning that repetition of a similar act would be dealt with
more severely.
Our Ruling
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 We adopt the ndings and recommendation of the IBP there being reasonable
grounds to hold him administratively liable. Indeed, Atty. Rivera's ip- opping version
deserves no credence at all. What is apparent in his narration is that he was indeed the
one who led the subject civil suit by allowing somebody to use his signature and other
details in the preparation of pleadings and ling the same before the court. As correctly
pointed out by Petelo, Atty. Rivera's act of allowing persons other than himself to use
his signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non-lawyers to practice
law. Worse, he failed to display or even manifest any zeal or eagerness to unearth the
truth behind the events which led to his involvement in the ling of the unauthorized civil
suit, much less to rectify the situation. Although he claimed that the signatures were
forgeries, there was nary a display of willingness on his part to pursue any legal action
against the alleged forgers. On the contrary, he openly admitted his association with a
disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his signature
and "details" in the preparation of pleadings. By so doing, Atty. Rivera not only willingly
allowed a non-lawyer to practice law; worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law
notwithstanding that this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law.
Clearly, the foregoing acts of Atty. Rivera constituted violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 9.01, Canon 9, Rule 1.10, Canon 1 and Rule
10.01, Canon 10, which read:
Rule 9.01, Canon 9: A lawyer shall not delegate to any unquali ed person
the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.
Rule 1.10, Canon 1: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 10.01, Canon 10: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; now shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
It bears to stress at this juncture that membership to the Bar has always been
jealously guarded such that only those who have successfully hurdled the stringent
examinations, possessed and maintained the required quali cations are allowed to
enjoy the privileges appurtenant to the title. Thus, it has been said that "[t]he title of
'attorney' is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study
of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it
is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction." 2 8 "The practice of
law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those who meet the
twin standards of legal pro ciency and morality. It is so delicately imbued with public
interest that it is both a power and a duty of this Court to control and regulate it in order
to protect and promote the public welfare." 2 9 However, Atty. Rivera abused the
privilege that is only personal to him when he allowed another who has no license to
practice law, to sign pleadings and to le a suit before the court using his signature and
"details." By allowing a non-lawyer to sign and submit pleadings before the court, Atty.
Rivera made a mockery of the law practice which is deeply imbued with public interest;
he totally ignored the fact that his act of ling a suit will have a corresponding impact
and effect on the society, particularly on the life and property rights of the person or
persons he wittingly involved in the litigation, in this case, Fe and Petelo. Atty. Rivera's
cavalier act of allowing someone to use to his signature and his "details" in the
complaint have concomitant and signi cant effects on the property rights of Fe and
Petelo. Our pronouncement in Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation 3 0 is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 relevant:
Contrary to respondent's position, a signed pleading is one that is signed
either by the party himself or his counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on this
matter. It requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him.
Therefore, only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel
operates to validly convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is
signed.
Counsel's authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He
may not delegate it to just any person.
The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has
read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief,
there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under
the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by a xing his signature, who can certify
to these matters.
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving
practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal
profession. Counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer
but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unquali ed
person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
Moreover, a signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by
unqualified persons, something the law strongly proscribes.
Therefore, the blanket authority respondent claims Atty. Garlitos
entrusted to just anyone was void. Any act taken pursuant to that authority was
likewise void. There was no way it could have been cured or rati ed by Atty.
Garlitos' subsequent acts.
Moreover, the transcript of the November 26, 1998 Senate hearing shows
that Atty. Garlitos consented to the signing of the answer by another "as long as
it conformed to his draft." We give no value whatsoever to such self-serving
statement.
No doubt, Atty. Garlitos could not have validly given blanket authority for
just anyone to sign the answer. The trial court correctly ruled that respondent's
answer was invalid and of no legal effect as it was an unsigned pleading.
Respondent was properly declared in default and the Republic was rightly
allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Respondent insists on the liberal application of the rules. It maintains
that even if it were true that its answer was supposedly an unsigned pleading,
the defect was a mere technicality that could be set aside.
Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled as
mere technicalities have their own valid raison d' etre in the orderly
administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may result in
arbitrariness and injustice.
xxx xxx xxx
As a nal note, the Court cannot close its eyes to the acts committed by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Atty. Garlitos in violation of the ethics of the legal profession. Thus, he should
be made to account for his possible misconduct.
There is, thus, no question in our mind that by delegating to someone else the
work that is reserved only for lawyers, Atty. Rivera violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. In addition, the actuations of Atty. Rivera tended to
mislead the Court. Indeed, the RTC of Makati City was misled into believing that the
complaint was led by the real party-in-interest and that Atty. Rivera was duly
authorized to le the same. As it turned out, the RTC eventually dismissed the
complaint after it was established thru the Manifestation filed by Petelo that it was filed
not by the real party-in-interest or by the duly authorized representative. Atty. Rivera,
thus, in violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10, committed a falsehood, or consented to the
doing of any in court; he not only misled the RTC but likewise wasted its precious time
and resources.
Atty. Rivera must be reminded that "[t]he practice of law is not a natural, absolute
or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a high
personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational
quali cations, duly ascertained and certi ed." 3 1 Being a personal privilege, Atty. Rivera
cannot simply consent to anyone using his signature and other bar details. Atty. Rivera
did not have the authority to bestow license to anybody to practice law because by
doing so, he usurped the right and authority that is exclusively vested upon this Court.
The authority to allow somebody to practice law and to closely scrutinize the tness
and quali cations of any law practitioner remains with this Court; and Atty. Rivera has
no right whatsoever to exercise the same. To emphasize, "the right to practice law is
not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special quali cations duly ascertained
and certi ed. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal
standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and
partaking of the nature of a public trust." 3 2
Finally, we nd the recommendation of the IBP to suspend Atty. Rivera from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year warranted by the circumstances of the case.
In Tapay v. Bancolo, 3 3 the Court similarly imposed the penalty of suspension of one (1)
year to the respondent-lawyer therein who was found to have authorized or delegated
to his secretary the signing of the pleadings for filing before the courts.
ACCORDINGLY , We nd respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera administratively liable
for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) year effective upon nality of this Decision with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera's
record in this Court as attorney. Further, let copies of this Decision be furnished to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the O ce of the Court Administrator, which is
directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and
guidance.
SO ORDERED .
Peralta, A.B. Reyes, Jr. and Inting, JJ., concur.
Leonen, * J., is on official leave.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes

* On official leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 9-22.
2. Also spelled as Emerr in some parts of the records.
3. Rollo, pp. 13-15.
4. Manansala in some parts of the records.

5. Rollo, p. 17.
6. Id. at 18-19.
7. Id. at 23.
8. Id. at 24-31.

9. Id. at 33-37.
10. Id. at 38-40; per Judge Elmo M. Alameda.
11. Id. at 39.
12. Id. at 45.
13. Id. at 49.

14. Id. at 51.

15. Id. at 58.
16. Id. at 59-60.
17. Id. at 71.
18. Id. at 72.

19. Id. at 72.

20. Id. at 125-129.
21. Id. at 126.
22. Id. at 127.

23. Id. at 131-136 at 131-132.

24. Id. at 149.
25. Id. at 151.
26. Id. at 151.
27. Id. at 142.

28. Alawi v. Alauya, 335 Phil. 1096, 1106 (1997).

29. Pantanosas, Jr. v. Pamatong, 787 Phil. 86, 88 (2016).
30. 529 Phil. 876, 883-886 (2006).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 31. In the Matter of the Admission to the Bar of Argosino, 316 Phil. 43, 46 (1995).
32. People v. Santocildes, Jr., 378 Phil. 943 (1999).

33. 707 Phil. 1 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com