3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v.
Beltran
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5858. December 11, 2003.]
ROGELIO R. SANTOS, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY.
RODOLFO C. BELTRAN, respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent lawyer
Rodolfo C. Beltran before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission
on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging that when respondent notarized a Deed
of Donation executed by his mother in favor of her nine children, except
complainant, the siblings did not personally appear before him. Complainant
submitted the affidavit executed by his brothers Benito and Renato attesting to
the fact that they signed the Deed of Donation not in the law office of the
respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision. Complainant
contended that respondent notarized the Deed of Donation in disregard of
Article 904 of the Civil Code. Complainant further alleged that respondent
represented conflicting interest when he entered his appearance as defense
counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client, Erlinda R. Santos-
Crawford, was the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interest. According to the Court, there is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. In the case
at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by Arcely Y. Santos in
behalf of Erlinda Santos-Crawford against complainant and Renato Santos.
Respondent, however, appeared as counsel for Evalyn Valino, Norberto
Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 for ejectment filed by
complainant as attorney-in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No.
14823, although litigated by complainant, was actually brought in behalf of
and to protect the interest of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Respondent's act of
representing the parties against whom his other client, Erlinda Santos-
Crawford, filed suit constituted conflict of interest. The Court, however, ruled
that complainant failed to controvert by clear and convincing evidence the
evidentiary weight with respect to its due execution and presumption of
regularity conferred upon a notarized document and documents
acknowledged before a notary public. Instead, the quantum of evidence
showed that complainant's siblings appeared before the respondent as notary
public and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of Renato and Benito Santos in
their affidavit that they did not sign the document in the law office of the
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 1/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision is admissible only
against them. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year and sternly warned that a commission of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. EHSADa
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; GROSS MISCONDUCT AND
MALPRACTICE; DOCUMENTS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A NOTARY
PUBLIC HAVE IN THEIR FAVOR PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY;
COMPLAINANT FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE SAID PRESUMPTION BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. — The rule is that a notarized
document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in
their favor the presumption of regularity. In the instant case, complainant failed
to controvert the said presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Instead,
the quantum of evidence shows that complainant's siblings appeared before
the respondent as notary public and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of
Renato and Benito Santos in their affidavit that they did not sign the document
in the law office of the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita is
admissible only against them. Likewise, we find the allegation of the
complainant that it was physically impossible for his siblings to sign the
document untenable. The certifications issued by the BID that the
complainant's siblings were absent at the time of the execution of the Deed of
Donation is not absolute. There are many ports of entry which complainant's
siblings may have used in coming into the country. The possibility that
complainant's siblings executed and signed the Deed is not remote. The
discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed and the date when
complainant's siblings obtained their CTCs had been substantially explained
in the affidavit executed by the secretary of the law office, Mely Lachica.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE COURT WAS NOT PERSUADED BY
COMPLAINANT'S INSINUATION THAT IT WAS UNETHICAL FOR
RESPONDENT TO REPRESENT HIM; IN ENTERING HIS APPEARANCE
AS PRIVATE PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENT DID NOT INTEND TO
REPRESENT COMPLAINANT BUT ONLY TO DEFEND HIMSELF FROM
THE ACCUSATION THAT HE NOTARIZED A DEED OF DONATION
WITHOUT THE AFFIANTS PERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE HIM. —
The allegation that respondent represented complainant in Criminal Case No.
73569 without being retained or authorized by the court is also untenable.
Respondent adequately explained his isolated appearance at one of the
hearings. The transcript of stenographic notes shows that respondent himself
was in doubt as to the nature of his appearance in the case. In entering his
appearance as private prosecutor, he did not intend to represent complainant
but only to defend himself from the: accusation of Benito and Renato that he
notarized the Deed of Donation in their absence. This was patent in the
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 2/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
transcript of stenographic notes wherein he admitted that he himself was in
doubt as to his position. We are not persuaded by complainant who tried to
insinuate that it was unethical for the respondent to represent him. cTDECH
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES
ARE NOT BASES OF CULPABILITY. — Anent the charge that respondent
acquired properties under litigation in violation of Article 1491 of the Civil
Code, records show that respondent acquired the property from Fabern's Inc.,
and not from Spouses Filemon and Benita Santos. Complainant's allegation
that respondent as director of Villa Benita Management and Development
Corporation fraudulently caused the transfer of titles of properties, specifically
parcels of lands owned by the family corporation, Fabern's Inc., by executing
a management and development contract, lacks basis. Respondent may not
be held accountable based on mere allegation that through, insidious
machinations he deprived Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, now their
estate, of the properties. Surmises, suspicion and conjectures are not bases
of culpability. aIETCA
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; RESPONDENT'S ACT
OF REPRESENTING THE PARTIES AGAINST WHOM HIS OTHER CLIENT
FILED SUIT CONSTITUTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST. — There is conflict
of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed
by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in
which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict
of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which
he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation
to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of
his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. In the case at
bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by Arcely Y. Santos in behalf
of Erlinda Santos-Crawford against complainant and Renato Santos.
Respondent, however appeared as counsel for Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino
and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 for ejectment filed by
complainant as attorney-in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No.
14823, although litigated by complainant, was actually brought in behalf of
and to protect the interest of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Respondent's act of
representing the parties against whom his other client, Erlinda Santos-
Crawford, filed suit constituted conflict of interest. ISAaTH
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 3/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J : p
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment 1 filed by Rogelio R.
Santos, Sr. against Atty. Rodolfo C. Beltran on the grounds of gross
misconduct and malpractice.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas Rodriguez
had ten children, namely, Romeo, Filomeno, Jr., Arturo, Erlinda, Ma. Alicia,
Arcely, Renato, Alberto and Benito and complainant Rogelio Santos, Sr. After
the death of Filomeno, Benita donated their two residential lots situated at 11
Javier Baritan, Malabon, Metro Manila, consisting of 489 and 333.4 square
meters, respectively, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) Nos.
R-18060 and R-18061, including the ancestral house situated thereon, in
favor of the nine children, except complainant. Respondent lawyer notarized
the Deed of Donation. 2
Benita Rodriguez died. Complainant and his brother, Alberto, were
appointed administrators 3 in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the
spouses' estate, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 516-AF, entitled In the Matter of
the Intestate Estate of Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita
Roxas Rodriguez, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City,
Branch 26 thereof.
On November 9, 1999, complainant filed a verified complaint against
respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging that when respondent notarized the subject
Deed of Donation, his siblings did not personally appear before him. 4
Complainant submitted the affidavit executed by Benito and Renato attesting
to the fact that they signed the Deed of Donation not in the law office of the
respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision. The Deed also
showed that his siblings secured their Community Tax Certificates twenty-two
days after the execution of the Deed of Donation, or on September 9, 1994.
Complainant contended that respondent notarized the Deed of Donation in
disregard of Article 904 5 of the Civil Code. Moreover, he argued that his
siblings were American citizens who were thus disqualified from owning real
properties in the Philippines.
Complainant further alleged that respondent appeared as private
prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 73560 for falsification of public document,
which he filed against Renato and Benito, without being engaged by him or
authorized by the court; that respondent represented conflicting interest when
he entered his appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case in which
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 4/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
his former client, Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford, was the plaintiff; and that
respondent, through insidious machination acquired the titles of two
residential lots at Villa Benita Subdivision owned by Spouses Filomeno and
Benita Santos.
Respondent denied the allegations. He confirmed the due execution of
the Deed of Donation and submitted in support thereof the affidavit executed
by Mely Lachica, the secretary of his law office. In her Affidavit, Lachica
categorically stated that she caused all parties to sign the Deed. She,
nevertheless admitted that she forgot to change the date of the execution of
the Deed from August 18, 1994 to September 9, 1994 when all the parties
had secured their CTCs. 6
Respondent argued that complainant's siblings may still acquire
properties in the Philippines through hereditary succession even though they
were already American citizens. The certifications issued by the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation were not conclusive proof of the arrival and
departure of his siblings considering that there were many ports of entry in the
country. Respondent also declared that complainant humiliated his mother
when, in his presence and that of his siblings, complainant uttered the
unsavory Tagalog words, "Putang ina mo matanda ka, walanghiya ka, walang
pinagkatandaan dapat mamatay ka na." 7
Respondent denied having represented complainant in Criminal Case
No. 73560 on December 15, 1999 when he appeared as private prosecutor.
He explained that complainant filed a complaint for falsification of public
document against him and his nine siblings, docketed as I.S. No. 04-99-3187,
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, relying on the
affidavit executed by Benito and Renato that they signed the Deed of
Donation in their houses at Villa Benita and not at respondent's office. The
prosecutor dismissed the complaint. A second action for falsification of public
document was filed by complainant against Renato and Benito, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 73560. Respondent appeared at one of the hearings of the
said case to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato.
Respondent emphasized that he did not ask for any compensation from
complainant for that isolated appearance.
Respondent denied having acquired any property under litigation. On
February 16, 1999, he bought 8 two parcels of land inside Villa Benita
Subdivision, covered by TCT Nos. T-50223 and 50225, from a corporation
owned by the Santoses, Fabern's Inc., and not from Spouses Filomeno and
Benita Santos, as claimed by complainant. He was surprised when sometime
in August 2002, complainant caused the annotation on the said titles of an
adverse claim that the properties belonged to the estate of Spouses Filomeno
and Benita Santos. Complainant relied on the Contract of Development dated
May 10, 1995 which Fabern's Inc. executed in favor of Villa Benita
Management and Development Corporation where respondent was one of the
directors.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 5/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
Respondent admitted having represented Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford in
Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment, entitled "Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford v.
Renato R.Santos and Rogelio R. Santos, Sr.," 9 involving a land covered by
TCT No. T-10168 at No. 1 F.S. Avenue, Villa Benita Subdivision, Cabanatuan
City and the improvements thereon. He also acted as defense counsel of
Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 10
for ejectment filed by Rogelio Santos on behalf of Erlinda R. Santos involving
the same property. He emphasized that the decision in Civil Case No. 12105
had long been executed, thus the attorney-client relationship between him
and Erlinda Santos-Crawford was also terminated. IcAaSD
On July 19, 2002, the IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating his
notarial commission and recommended that his commission be suspended for
a period of one year. 11
The Board of Governors, in Resolution No. CBD Case No. 99-670,
modified the recommendation, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, with modification, and considering
respondent's violation of his notarial obligation, Respondent's
Commission as Notary Public is hereby SUSPENDED, with
DISQUALIFICATION from being appointed as Notary Public for two
(2) years from notice of final decision. 12
On October 11, 2002, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of
the aforestated Resolution, which was denied by the Board on December 14,
2002 on the ground that it has lost jurisdiction thereof upon its endorsement to
this Court. 13
In essence, complainant seeks the disbarment of the respondent for
allegedly notarizing a Deed of Donation without the affiants personally
appearing before him. Indeed, the power to disbar must be exercised with
great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of
the court and as a member of the bar. 14 Corollary thereto, gross misconduct
is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment." 15
The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight
conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of
regularity. 16 In the instant case, complainant failed to controvert the said
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 6/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the quantum of
evidence shows that complainant's siblings appeared before the respondent
as notary public and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of Renato and Benito
Santos in their affidavit that they did not sign the document in the law office of
the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita is admissible only against
them. 17 Likewise, we find the allegation of the complainant that it was
physically impossible for his siblings to sign the document untenable. The
certifications issued by the BID that the complainant's siblings were absent at
the time of the execution of the Deed of Donation is not absolute. There are
many ports of entry which complainant's siblings may have used in coming
into the country. The possibility that complainant's siblings executed and
signed the Deed is not remote. The discrepancy in the date stamped in the
Deed and the date when complainant's siblings obtained their CTCs had been
substantially explained in the affidavit executed by the secretary of the law
office, Mely Lachica.
The allegation that respondent represented complainant in Criminal
Case No. 73569 without being retained or authorized by the court is also
untenable. Respondent adequately explained his isolated appearance at one
of the hearings. The transcript of stenographic notes shows that respondent
himself was in doubt as to the nature of his appearance in the case. In
entering his appearance as private prosecutor, he did not intend to represent
complainant but only to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and
Renato that he notarized the Deed of Donation in their absence. This was
patent in the transcript of stenographic notes wherein he admitted that he
himself was in doubt as to his position. We are not persuaded by complainant
who tried to insinuate that it was unethical for the respondent to represent
him.
Anent the charge that respondent acquired properties under litigation in
violation of Article 1491 18 of the Civil Code, records show that respondent
acquired the property from Fabern's Inc., and not from Spouses Filemon and
Benita Santos. Complainant's allegation that respondent as director of Villa
Benita Management and Development Corporation fraudulently caused the
transfer of titles of properties, specifically parcels of lands owned by the family
corporation, Fabern's Inc., by executing a management and development
contract, lacks basis. Respondent may not be held accountable based on
mere allegation that through insidious machinations he deprived Spouses
Filomeno and Benita Santos, now their estate, of the properties. Surmises,
suspicion and conjectures are not bases of culpability.
Lastly, complainant indicted respondent for representing conflicting
interest in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
viz:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 7/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf
of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his
duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This
rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first
client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of
interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance
thereof. 19
In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by
Arcely Y. Santos in behalf of Erlinda Santos-Crawford against complainant
and Renato Santos. Respondent, however appeared as counsel for Evalyn
Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No. 14823 for
ejectment filed by complainant as attorney-in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford.
Civil Case No. 14823, although litigated by complainant, was actually brought
in behalf of and to protect the interest of Erlinda Santos-Crawford.
Respondent's act of representing the parties against whom his other client,
Erlinda Santos-Crawford, filed suit constituted conflict of interest. 20
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year effective immediately. Respondent is further
STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar act in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the record of respondent and
served on the IBP, as well as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it
to all courts for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Petition, Rollo, pp. 248-260.
2. Rollo, pp. 18-20.
3. Id., p. 12.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 8/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
4. The September 20, 1999 Certifications of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) on the travel records, pertaining to petitioner's siblings'
arrival and departure showed that it was physically impossible for them to
appear before the respondent, viz:
ROMEO R. SANTOS, Control No. 092019990570769B, born on
September 12, 1929, an American citizen using Passport No. 151582510,
who arrived in the Philippines on August 12, 1994 & left for Los Angeles on
August 18, 1994, & came back to the Philippines on August 23, 1995; 4
ALICIA SANTOS SIROTA, Control No. 092019990530766B, born on
June 19, 1951, an American citizen using U.S. Passport No. 034056327
who left the Philippines for Los Angeles on August 30, 1994; 4
ARTURO R. SANTOS, Control No. 092019990570770B, born on
December 14, 1944, an American citizen using U.S. Passport No.
151125864, who arrived in the Philippines on July 28, 1994 left for Narita,
Tokyo on August 23, 1994, & came back to the Philippines only on March
19, 1995; 4
ERLINDA SANTOS SALVIO, Control No. 092019990530767B, born on
April 28, 1942, an American citizen using Passport No. 034495662, who
arrived in the Philippines on July 27, 1994 & left for Los Angeles on August
11, 1994 and she came back on June 8, 1995; 4 and
FELOMINO R. SANTOS, JR., Control No. 092019990570771B, born on
July 31, 1936, a Filipino citizen using Philippine Passport No. BB212998,
who left the Philippines since 1987 and already a green card holder who
came back on December 1, 1996. 4
5. The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, except
in cases expressly specified by law.
Neither can he impose upon the same any burden, encumbrance,
condition, or substitution of any kind whatsoever.
6. Rollo, p. 431.
7. Id., p. 463.
8. Deed of Sale, Rollo, p. 191.
9. Rollo, pp. 345-349.
10. Id., pp. 350-356.
11. Id., p. 281.
12. Id., p. 261.
13. Id., p. 282.
14. Alitagtag v. Garcia, A.C. No. 4738, 10 June 2003.
15. Spouses Whitson v. Atienza, A.C. No. 5535, 28 August 2003.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 9/10
3/25/2019 A.C. No. 5858 | Santos, Sr. v. Beltran
16. Loyola, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115734, 23 February
2000.
17. Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:
Admissions of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as
to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot
be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
18. (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon
an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they
exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they
may take part by virtue of their profession.
19. Hornilla and Ricafort v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 1 July 2003.
20. Rollo, p. 355.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/7409/print 10/10
