- Atty. Mendoza represented Skyline Corp. and Nell Mart in litigation regarding properties allegedly owned by the deceased pastor Lim and claimed by Lim's surviving spouse, Rufina.
- Rufina alleged that Skyline and Nell Mart were dummy corporations used by Lim to hide conjugal assets. Atty. Mendoza had previously signed pleadings asserting this but later claimed the corporations were legitimate.
- The IBP found Atty. Mendoza guilty of violating legal ethics rules regarding candor, fairness, and prohibitions on false statements due to his inconsistent positions and use of offensive language in court filings. He was suspended from practice for 2 years.
- Atty. Mendoza represented Skyline Corp. and Nell Mart in litigation regarding properties allegedly owned by the deceased pastor Lim and claimed by Lim's surviving spouse, Rufina.
- Rufina alleged that Skyline and Nell Mart were dummy corporations used by Lim to hide conjugal assets. Atty. Mendoza had previously signed pleadings asserting this but later claimed the corporations were legitimate.
- The IBP found Atty. Mendoza guilty of violating legal ethics rules regarding candor, fairness, and prohibitions on false statements due to his inconsistent positions and use of offensive language in court filings. He was suspended from practice for 2 years.
- Atty. Mendoza represented Skyline Corp. and Nell Mart in litigation regarding properties allegedly owned by the deceased pastor Lim and claimed by Lim's surviving spouse, Rufina.
- Rufina alleged that Skyline and Nell Mart were dummy corporations used by Lim to hide conjugal assets. Atty. Mendoza had previously signed pleadings asserting this but later claimed the corporations were legitimate.
- The IBP found Atty. Mendoza guilty of violating legal ethics rules regarding candor, fairness, and prohibitions on false statements due to his inconsistent positions and use of offensive language in court filings. He was suspended from practice for 2 years.
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