SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 3808. February 2, 2000
RAYMUNDO T. MAGDALUYO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ENRIQUE L.
NACE, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In a verified complaint filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant on March 17, 1992,
complainant Raymundo T. Magdaluyo accused respondent Atty. Enrique T. Nace of acts
amounting to deceit and gross misconduct.
Complainant alleged that he is the registered owner of parcels of land situated in
Antipolo, Rizal. In 1991, he conducted dialogues with squatters - among them
respondent - living on said land and offered to relocate them to another portion of the
land. The squatters refused, and on August 21, 1991, filed a complaint against
complainant before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB). They
claimed to be tenants on complainant's land and, thus, could not be forcibly ejected.
Almost three months later on November 14, 1991, the squatters - again including
respondent - also filed a case against complainant before the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo for the annulment or cancellation of complainant's land titles. This time, they
claimed to be owners, not mere tenants, of the land. They traced their alleged
ownership to an old Spanish title.
In view of the conflicting causes of action in the agrarian and the civil cases, the DAR
Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the squatters' complaint before the PARAB for lack of
jurisdiction. At the same time, the civil case was also dismissed for lack of cause of
action. The RTC ruled that the squatters' claim of ownership based on an old Spanish
title could not defeat complainant's claim under a Torrens title.
Complainant filed this complaint against respondent inasmuch as he was a party to
both the agrarian and civil suits. He accused respondent of having deliberately
committed a falsehood and of forum-shopping, and prayed that proper disciplinary
sanctions be imposed against respondent.
Respondent denied complainant's allegations. He stated that the agrarian case was filed
not by him but by a federation of farmers and, therefore, not his personal
responsibility. He denied having committed forum-shopping since, according to him, the
two cases involved different causes of action.
This matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the proper
investigation, report, and recommendation.
In its report, the IBP notes that respondent failed to appear during any of the hearings
of the case, prompting complainant to present his evidence ex parte and thereafter
submit the case for resolution.
Said the IBP in its investigation report:
"...while it may be true at different causes of action are indeed involved, it is their total
inconsistency, nay, total opposition with each other which raises doubts about the
respondent's sincerity. It escapes this Commission [on Bar Discipline] how Respondent
can, in good faith, allege to be a lawful tenant one moment, and be an owner the next.
Respondent herein, as a lawyer, was remiss in his duty to correctly inform the court of
the law and the facts of this case. He failed to allege in his complaint the fact that a
prior dispute had been existing between the parties before the PARAB, thus deceiving
the court and giving it an inaccurate appreciation of facts.
Lastly, respondent was delinquent in his duty as a lawyer to maintain only such suits as
appears to him to be just and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable. It has long been settled that Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of
land ownership. Yet respondent dares raise the same in his complaint to defeat
Complainant's duly registered certificate of title. Any lawyer would know that a Spanish
title would have no legal leg to stand on in the face of Transfer Certificate of Title over
the same parcel of land."1 cräläwvirtualibräry
The IBP recommends that respondent be reprimanded for his unprofessional and
improper acts. Being fully supported by the evidence on record, we concur with the
IBP's findings and recommendation.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition in the Code of Professional Responsibility
against engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 2 He was, indeed,
less than sincere in asserting two conflicting rights over a portion of land that, in all
probability, he knew not to be his. What made matters worse was his participation in
bringing such claims to court, knowing them to be contradictory and therefore cannot
both be true, though both could be totally false. In this he is guilty of consenting to if
not actual commission of a falsehood before a court, again in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:3 cräläwvirtualibräry
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by his oath to do no falsehood or consent to its
commission and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a
ground for suspension, disbarment,4 or other disciplinary action.5 Respondent's acts are
clearly in violation of his solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.
WHEREFORE , as recommended, respondent Atty. Enrique L. Nace is hereby
REPRIMANDED for his misconduct, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be more severely dealt with.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.2/18/00 11:24
AM
Endnotes:
1
Records, Vol. I, Report of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline, p, 4.
2
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
3
Id., Canon 10, Rule 10.01.
4
Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, 215 SCRA 301 (1992); Richards v. Asoy, 152 SCRA 45, 50 (1987); Diaz v. Gerong, 141 SCRA
46, 49 (1986)
5
Reyes v. Gaa, 246 SCRA 64, 67 (1995)
