FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1825. August 22, 1978.]

ROMULO SANTOS, complainant, vs. ALBERTO M. DICHOSO,

respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Complainant, who was one of the petitioners in a guardianship proceeding,

sought the disbarment of respondent who was counsel of the oppositor, on the
grounds of deceit, malprctice, gross misconduct and violation of his lawyer's
oath, specifically, for allegedly filing surreptitiously notices of lis pendens on the
real properties of complainant's father with the Register of Deeds to the damage
and prejudice of the registered owner by misrepresenting himself as the counsel
for plaintiff, and for indiscriminate postponement of the hearing of an unlawful
detainer case. Respondent specifically denied the charges, explaining that there
was no deliberate misrepresentation that he was counsel of plaintiff as this was
a clerical error committed by his new clerk and that there was an immediate
necessity for the filing of the notice of lis pendens. As to the motion for
continuance the same was filed in good faith, the ground therefor having been
found by the trial court to be well taken.
Finding respondent's explanation reasonable and satisfactory, the Supreme Court
dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deceit and that the acts
complained of do not constitute malpractice, gross misconduct nor violation of
the lawyer's oath.
Complaint dismissed.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DISBARMENT; PURPOSE. — The purpose of

disbarment is to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers
of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those
who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and
trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; BURDEN AND DEGREE OF PROOF. — An attorney
enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against
him until the contrary is proved; and as an officer of the court, he is presumed to
have performed his duty in accordance with his oath. In disbarment proceedings,
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its
disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by
clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Indeed, considering the serious
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the
Supreme Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. Thus, a complaint
for disbarment will be dismissed where the respondent not only specifically
denied the charges but also satisfactorily explained the acts complained of.
3. ID.; ID.; DUTIES. — A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client.
Thus, respondent lawyer who was counsel of the oppositor in the guardianship
proceeding may not be faulted for having filed the notices of lis pendens as he
has the duty to pursue with zeal and dedication the best interests of his client
and the filing of the notices of lis pendenswas well within the scope of his
authority as counsel.
4. NOTICE; LIS PENDENS; PROPER IN GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING. — The
annotation of notice of lis pendens is permissible in guardianship proceedings for
it is a precautionary measure against instances wherein the incompetent may
dispose of his properties in favor of persons who may take undue advantage of
the incompetent's advanced age and weak mental and physical condition.

RESOLUTION

GUERRERO, J : p

Upon a sworn complaint for disbarment dated October 10, 1977, Romulo Santos,
complaint herein, charged Atty. Alberto M. Dichoso for alleged deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct and violation of his lawyer's oath.
The records disclose that in Special Proceeding No. 2452-P before the Court of
First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXIX, complainant Romulo Santos and his
brother, Lamberto Santos, sought to be appointed as joint guardians over the
person and property of their 75 year old father, Emilio Santos, who figured in a
near tragic vehicular mishap that so impaired his mental faculties and physical
mobility as to render him incompetent. Respondent Atty. Alberto Dichoso, on the
other hand, is the counsel of one Flordeliza Aniana, Oppositor in the
aforementioned guardianship proceeding, claiming to be a daughter of Emilio
Santos.
As embodied in his sworn complaint, the complainant accused respondent
counsel of surreptitiously filing notices of lis pendens covering properties of
Emilio Santos with the Register of Deeds of Makati, Metro Manila and of
Tagaytay City and taking advantage of his position and knowledge of the law,
said respondent deliberately and wilfully misled and made false representation
thus beguiling and deceiving the Register of Deeds into making the annotation to
the damage and prejudice of the registered owner. Complainant also alleged that
in an action for unlawful detainer [docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 3761 to 3763]
which complainant in representation of his father, Emilio Santos, brought against
one Ester Chavez and Marcela Dizon with respondent as counsel, the scheduled
hearing had to be postponed by respondent because "he will be busy with the
inauguration of a new construction bridge, although as a practicing lawyer he has
nothing to do with the inauguration of bridges, that it is very plain and clear that
respondent has no motive except to impede, obstruct and delay the
administration of justice to the damage and prejudice of the complainant."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 In his answer dated November 21, 1977, respondent specifically denied the
charge of surreptitious filing of notice of lis pendens on the real properties of
Emilio Santos. Respondent also negated complainant's accusation that he had
taken advantage of his position and knowledge of the law in having deliberately
and wilfully misled and misrepresented himself as Counsel of Plaintiff. Anent this
charge, respondent explained the mistake as a mere clerical error committed by
his new clerk, Romulo Vicente, in the following tenor:
". . . (T)he word Counsel for Plaintiff should have been Counsel for the
Oppositor and this is a mere clerical error committed by the clerk of the
respondent in typing Plaintiff instead of Oppositor. In the guardianship
proceeding, there is no plaintiff but petitioner and the said allegation that
the respondent had misled and made representation to the Register of
Deeds is not true, for when the notice of lis pendens was filed by the
clerk of the undersigned together with the client, the undersigned was
sick and still suffering from stroke (hypertension) and that there was an
immediate necessity of filing the notice of lis pendens because the
oppositor, my client, was informed from reliable source that Romulo
Santos, the complainant and the petitioner in the guardianship proceeding
was about to dispose or to squander and to abscond the estate of their
father, the incompetent, so there was an urgent need of filing a notice of
lis pendens so that the clerk of the respondent, Romulo Vicente, who is
still new and has no legal background and experience simply copied some
form of notice of lis pendens filed by the undersigned in other cases.
When the notice of lis pendens was handed by Romulo Vicente together
with Flordeliza Aniana for the signature of the respondent, he called the
attention of Romulo Vicente to change the word plaintiff to Oppositor, and
he is now surprised to learn that he did not change the word Plaintiff to
Oppositor. . . ."

We consider respondent's explanation reasonable and satisfactory. As to

complainant's imputation that the respondent's motion for continuance of a
scheduled hearing in Civil Case Nos. 3761 to 3763 for Ejectment in the Municipal
Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila was intended to impede, obstruct and delay
the administration of justice, to the alleged damage of complainant who is
representing his father as Plaintiff, respondent lawyer submitted the following
answer, thus:
"(T)he said motion was filed in good faith and its soundness and
reasonableness had been passed upon by the court to have granted said
request of the respondent. With respect to the transfer of the hearing
for August 10, 1977 to September 9, 1977 due to a motion filed by the
respondent, for reason of a case pending in the City Court of Manila
instead of the Justice of Peace Court of Manila, is a clerical error for there
is no justice of the Peace of Manila, it is true and certification of the clerk
of City Court of Manila to this effect that the undersigned is the private
prosecutor in Civil Case No. 00218, C.R., People of the Philippines vs.
Marina Obhamia and the date of the hearing coincided with the date of
hearing at the Justice of the Peace of Parañaque, which is hereunto
attached, and with respect to the request for postponement filed by the
respondent to transfer the hearing on September 9, 1977 due to the
inauguration of an important bridge in my hometown and the
undersigned attorney having been a Mayor of the town and the town is a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 beneficiary of the bridge which was inaugurated, the long availed
realization of a promise of the undersigned and the President of the
Philippines which was inaugurated in connection with his visit and birthday
in our hometown, which is a very rare and important occasion to me. This
is the only secondary reason, for the main reason of the request for
postponement is that, the undersigned counsel is the counsel of the
accused in Criminal Case No. 787-VI, CFI, Ilocos Norte, set on the 9th of
September, 1977. However, the clients of the undersigned respondent
were all present during the hearing in court and they were instructed to
get another lawyer to represent them in case said motion for
postponement is denied, so that there is no delay in the disposition of the
case. The reasonableness, justification and boundness in granting my
motion for postponement had been passed upon by the court which is
within its judicial discretion."

From the above quoted answer of the respondent, We find no showing that he
acted with deceit. The acts complained of do not constitute malpractice, gross
misconduct nor violation of the lawyer's oath. cdphil

The purpose of disbarment is to protect the court and the public from the
misconduct of officers of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence. An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved; and as an officer of
the court, he is presumed to have performed his duty in accordance with his
oath. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant,
and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the
respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
Indeed, considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of
a member of the Bar, the Supreme Court has consistently held that clearly
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative
penalty.
The records reveal that respondent may not be faulted for having filed the
notices of lis pendens. Being the counsel of the Oppositor in the guardianship
proceeding, respondent has the duty to pursue with zeal and dedication the best
interests of his client and the filing of the notices of lis pendens was well within
the scope of his authority as counsel. The lawyer owes entire devotion to the
interest of his client. Besides, the annotation of notice of lis pendens is
permissible in guardianship proceedings for it is a precautionary measure against
instances wherein the incompetent may dispose of his properties in favor of
persons who may take undue advantage of the incompetent's advanced age and
weak mental and physical condition.
As regards the imputation of indiscriminate postponement of the hearing in the
cases adverted to, no less than the court before whom the cases of Ejectment
were heard found the motions to be in order and well-taken.
The profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It is a
lifetime professional. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney may be
able to amass considerable means to support himself and his family, besides the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 honor and prestige that accompany his office and profession. To deprive him of
such honored station in life which would result in irreparable injury must require
proof of the highest degree, which We find nowhere here. While courts will not
hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live
up to their sworn duties, they will, on the other hand, protect them from the
unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants. The success of a lawyer in his
profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm
his good name is to be deplored. Private persons, and particularly disgruntled
opponents, may not, therefore, be permitted to use the courts as vehicles
through which to vent their rancor on members of the Bar. llcd

WHEREFORE, this complaint for disbarment is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman) Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com