Lim vs. Atty.

Mendoza which to later assail the truthfulness of the Petition for

Intervention, alleging that it was pre-arranged agreement
Facts: between client and complainant, shows he lied to the
Rufina is the surviving spouse of pastor Lim who died on courts.
June 11, 1994. She claimed that during his lifetime Pastor  Further noted that despite his knowledge about the
used conjugal funds to organized several dummy irregularity in the issuance of shares in Nell Mart, he still
corporations, Skyline Corp. and Nell Mart using his acquired shares of stocks and even claimed to be a buyer
mistress and employees as incorporations and/or in good faith.
stockholders in order to defeat her claims to said properties.  As a notary, he notarized affidavits which in effect
attested to repeated violations of the Corporation Code,
March 17, 1995, Rufina filed a Joint Petition before RTC. For without any showing that he even attempted to caution
the settlement of the estate of Pastor. Miguel Lim, half- his clients of the illegality of their acts.
brother of Pastor, on mother’s side, filed a petition for  Respondent also did not deny using offensive language in
Intervention, categorically stating under oath that Skyline his pleadings.
and etc. are dummy corporations and officers are dummies.  Finally, the Report noted that respondent's Position Paper
That land of the corp. is actually in the name of Pastor. lacked Professional Tax Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or
Petition for Intervention was executed before Atty. Lifetime Number, Roll of Attorneys Number and his
Mendoza, as notary public. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), in clear
violation of Bar Matter Nos. 1132 and 1922
However, Atty. Mendoza, as counsel fo Skyline, argued
that Skyline is the registered owner of several real IBP Board Governor adopt the Resolution.
properties and that it has all the right to protect its
interest against Rufina. Rufina averred that Atty. Issue: WON Atty. Mendoza violated CPR.
Mendoza made such allegation despite his knowledge that
Skyline is a dummy corporation and I has been judicially Ruling: Adopt the findings of the Board and noted
declared as conjugal property of Rufina and Pastor. that this is not his first infraction thus penalty of
disbarment. Disbarred from practice of law for
Rufina’s claim against Atty. Mendoza, who is acting as VP of violations of Canons 1, 5, 10 and Rule 10.01.
Nell Mart that is demanded from tenants to vacate the
property, claiming that Nell Mart owned the same, while Practice of law is a privilege and that they must perform the
knowing that Nell Mart is a dummy corp. And finally averred four fold duty to society, legal profession, court and clients.
that Atty. Mendoza used intemperate language in his It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that the CPR
pleadings particularly when he said that Rufina collected emphatically reiterates the core values of honesty, integrity,
“BILLIONS OF PESOS” as rentals which were “DISSIPATED and trustworthiness.
ON HER GAMBLINGS VICES.”
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer, not just to obey the
Atty. Mendoza, in his Answer, countered: laws of the land, but also to refrain from doing any
1. Rufina and Pastor were separated for more than 26 years falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing
by the time Pastor died. of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best
2. The couple entered into an Agreement where they already of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the
partition their conjugal properties. courts, as well as to his clients. All lawyers are servants of
3. As to dummy corporations, there is already an RTC the law, and have to observe and maintain the rule of law,
decision declaring that at "the bank deposits in the names of as well as be exemplars worthy of emulation by others. It is
[Nell Mart] and Skunac Corporation x x x which were found by no means a coincidence, therefore, that the CPR
to be properties distinct from the estate, are x x x not emphatically reiterates the core values of honesty, integrity,
properties of the estate of x x x Pastor x x x and are, and trustworthiness.
therefore, ordered excluded therefrom x x x."
4. He admit on having filed the petition for intervention, he Canon 10 – stresses lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
said that it was "pre-arranged between Rufina and Miguel Y. faith to the court. In Rule 10.01. — A lawyer shall not do
Lim." Unfortunately, Miguel and Yao Hiong died before they any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor
could testify, hence the statements made in the Petition for shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
Intervention are mere hearsay. artifice.
5. He points out that this is the 2nd complaint filed by Rufina
against him before IBP involving the same issue of Flip-flopping of averments on corp. as dummies
ownership and that the claimed for disbarment is a Respondent drafted and signed the Petition for Intervention
retaliation for her losses in other cases. which avers in essence that the subject corporations, Skyline
and etc. were mere dummies created by the late Pastor Lim.
IBP Report and Recommendation He notarized the affidavits stating in essence that they were
Recommends suspension for 2 years in the practice of law. dummies in the corporations of Pastor. Respondent in his
 It noted that although Atty. Mendoza admitted that the Position Paper before the IBP-CBD claimed however that the
Agreement may be improper, he still argues that the same statements in the Petition for Intervention, as well as the
is valid between the parties. His insistence on this validity Affidavits in support thereto were not his statements. The
of the Agreement only betrays his ignorance of law which petition was led pursuant to "agreed arrangements"
contravenes Canons 1 and 5. between complainant and the late Miguel Lim and that the
 The drafting of petition for Intervention, signed the same, assignment of shares of stock by Miguel to him, was a "pre-
presumption that the contents are true and correct of arranged agreement as payments for attorney's fees and for
reimbursements of whatever litigations expenses advanced rich with expressions that are emphatic but respectful,
by the respondent." convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive. Here, respondent, in his eagerness to advance his
His flip-flopping on his averments in his pleadings betray a client's cause, imputed on Rufina derogatory traits that are
lack of forthrightness and transparency on his part. The damaging to her reputation.
incompatibility of the two positions, it is clear that
respondent has been less than truthful in at least one Failure to indicate material information required in rules
occasion. As officer of the court, lawyers are expected to act Finally, respondent failed to indicate in his Position Paper
with complete candor. They may not resort to the use of material information required by the rules. These are, the
deception, not just in some, but in all their dealings. The Professional Tax Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime
CPR bars lawyers from committing or consenting to any Number, Roll of Attorneys Number and his MCLE, in violation
falsehood, or from misleading or allowing the court to be of Bar Matter Nos. 1132 and 1922. These requirements are
misled by guile in finding the truth. Needless to say, not vain formalities or mere frivolities. Rather, these
complete and absolute honesty is expected of lawyers when requirements ensure that only those who have satisfied the
they appear and plead before the courts. Any act that requisites for legal practice are able to engage in it. To
obstructs or impedes the administration of justice constitutes willfully disregard them is to willfully disregard mechanisms
misconduct which merits disciplinary action on lawyers. put in place to facilitate integrity, competence and credibility
in legal practice.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to be a disciple of truth,
having sworn upon his admission to the Bar that he would In Sosa vs. Atty. Mendoza, Atty. Mendoza was found
do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR, for his
and that he would conduct himself as a lawyer according to willful failure to pay a loan in the amount of P500,000.00.
the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good The Court ordered his suspension from the practice of law
fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. Respondent for one year with a stern warning that a commission of the
should bear in mind that as an officer of the court, his high same or similar offense will result in the imposition of a
vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and more severe penalty. In said case, the Court declared that
the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and Atty. Mendoza's "failure to honor his just debt constitutes
arriving at a correct conclusion. Respondent also cannot dishonest and deceitful conduct x x x [which is] compounded
feign ignorance as to the veracity of the statements by Atty. Mendoza's act of interjecting flimsy excuses that
in the petition because he signed the same. only strengthened the conclusion that he refused to pay a
Respondent should not forgot, a counsel's signature on a valid and just debt."
pleading is neither an empty formality nor even a mere
means for identification. It is a solemn component of legal The string of offenses committed by respondent betrays his
practice that through a counsel's signature, a positive propensity to ignore, disrespect and make a mockery of the
declaration is made. In certifying through his signature that judicial institution he has vowed to honor and protect. His
he has read the pleading, that there is ground to support it, violations, in not just one instance, show his recalcitrant
and that it is not interposed for delay, a lawyer asserts his character, undeserving of the privilege to practice in the
competence, credibility, and ethics. legal profession. Membership in the Bar is a privilege laden
with conditions, granted only to those who possess the strict
Agreement of Rufina and Pastor improper notarial act intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers as
Respondent also erred in asserting that the Agreement instruments in the effective and efficient administration of
between Rufina and Pastor was "improper for notarial act," it justice. As officers of the courts and keepers of the public's
has "binding effect against third persons." The Agreement in faith, lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social
essence was a contract entered into by the parties, responsibility. They are mandated to behave at all times in a
separating their present and future properties, with Rufina manner that is consistent with truth and honor and are
waiving her support from Pastor and both spouses waiving expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a
any future action between them, whether civil or criminal. high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
The sworn obligation of every lawyer to respect the law and
the legal processes is a continuing condition for retaining
membership in the profession. He is also expected to keep
abreast of legal developments. To claim that such
agreement is binding against third persons shows
either respondent's ignorance of the law or his
wanton disregard for the laws of the land.

Use of temperate and respectful language in pleadings

Respondent likewise failed to use temperate and respectful
language in his pleading against complainant. In his
Comment on the said proceedings, respondent averred that
Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" in rent which were
"DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES."

The Code provides that a "lawyer shall not, in his

professional dealings, use language that is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper." Lawyers are instructed to be
gracious and must use such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentleman to another. Our language is