Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Collantes v. Renomeron

    Uploaded by

    Magr Esca
    176 views2 pages
    1) Attorney Collantes filed an administrative case against Register of Deeds Renomeron for irregularly suspending the registration of 163 deeds of sale submitted by V&G Better Homes in exchange for personal benefits. 2) Despite resolutions finding the documents registrable, Renomeron continued refusing registration and demanding additional unauthorized requirements. 3) Collantes filed disbarment complaints against Renomeron with the NLTDRA and Supreme Court. 4) The Court ruled that a lawyer can be disciplined for malfeasance in public office, as their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility govern conduct in government service.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Attorney Collantes filed an administrative case against Register of Deeds Renomeron for irregularly suspending the registration of 163 deeds of sale submitted by V&G Better Homes in exchange for personal benefits. 2) Despite resolutions finding the documents registrable, Renomeron continued refusing registration and demanding additional unauthorized requirements. 3) Collantes filed disbarment complaints against Renomeron with the NLTDRA and Supreme Court. 4) The Court ruled that a lawyer can be disciplined for malfeasance in public office, as their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility govern conduct in government service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    176 views2 pages

    Collantes v. Renomeron

    Uploaded by

    Magr Esca
    1) Attorney Collantes filed an administrative case against Register of Deeds Renomeron for irregularly suspending the registration of 163 deeds of sale submitted by V&G Better Homes in exchange for personal benefits. 2) Despite resolutions finding the documents registrable, Renomeron continued refusing registration and demanding additional unauthorized requirements. 3) Collantes filed disbarment complaints against Renomeron with the NLTDRA and Supreme Court. 4) The Court ruled that a lawyer can be disciplined for malfeasance in public office, as their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility govern conduct in government service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Collantes v.

    Renomeron

    FACTS:

    Disbarment against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City.

     Atty. Collantes, counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), filed an
    administrative case against Atty. Renomeron, for the latter’s irregular actuations with
    regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute
    Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.

     V&G complied with the desired requirements, however, Renomeron suspended the
    registration of the documents pending the compliance of the former with their
    “special conditions”, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip
    ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu
    thereof, the sale of respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS
    representatives.

     Renomeron formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated


    the question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio
    (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The
    Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents.

     Despite the resolution of the Administrator, Renomeron still refused the registration
    thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional
    requirements not adverted in his previous denial.

     Exasperated by respondent’s conduct, the complainant filed with the NLTDRA on


    June 4, 1987 administrative charges against respondent Register of Deeds.

     LRA Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 22, 1988, recommended to


    Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoñez that the respondent:

     (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of duty:


     (2) be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for
    registration; and
     (3) be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be dealt with more
    severely.
     After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoñez found respondent guilty of
    grave misconduct, recommended to President Corazon C. Aquino that Renomeron be
    dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits,
    and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service, effective
    immediately.
     Less than two weeks after filing his complaint against Renomeron in the NLTDRA,
    Attorney Collantes also filed in this Court on June 16, 1987, a disbarment complaint
    against said respondent.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by
    the Court for his malfeasance as a public official?

    Held:

     Yes, a lawyer’s misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his


    oath as a lawyer. The lawyer’s oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay
    no man for money or malice. The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and its
    violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.
     The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the
    discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer to engage
    in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of
    Professional Responsibility), or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive or
    interest” (Rule 1.03).

    You might also like