TEODORO R. RIVERA, ANTONIO D.

AQUINO
and FELIXBERTO D. AQUINO,
complainants, vs. ATTY. SERGIO
ANGELES, respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On March 25, 1983, complainants filed a
Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Sergio Angeles
on the grounds of Deceit and Malpractice. The
Affidavit-Complaint[if !supportFootnotes][1][endif] reads as follows:
1.....The undersigned are plaintiffs in Civil Cases Nos.
Q-12841 and Q-13128 of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch V at Quezon City;
2.....Atty. Sergio Angeles is their counsel of record in the said
cases and his office is located at Suite 335, URC
Building, 2123 Espaa, Manila;
3.....That after receiving favorable decision from the CFI on
May 21, 1973 and sustained by the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court an alias writ of execution was
issued in said cases;
4.....That in the first week of January 1983 we obtained from
the CFI a sheriffs return, dated November 10, 1982,
stating that no leviable property can be found in the
premises of the defendants;
5.....That on or before January 13, 1983, we learned that Mr.
Rodolfo M. Silva, one of the defendants in said cases
had already given Atty. Angeles a partial settlement of
the judgment in the amount of P42,999.00 (as
evidenced by xerox copies of Partial Settlement of
Judgment dated September 21, 1982 and Receipt of

Payment dated September 22, 1982, hereto attached

as Annexes A and B, respectively), without our
knowledge.
6.....That Atty. Sergio Angeles never informed the undersigned
of the amount of P42,999.00 he received from Mr. Silva
nor remitted to them even a part of that amount;
7.....That a demand letter was sent to Atty. Sergio Angeles
which was received by him on February 17, 1983, but
as of this date the undersigned have not yet received
any reply. (See Exhibit C and D attached).

In his Comment filed on June 21, 1983,

respondent denied the accusations and stated that he
has the right to retain the said amount of P42,999.00
and to apply the same to professional fees due him
under the subsequent agreement first with
complainant Teodoro Rivera and later with Mrs. Dely
Dimson Rivera as embodied in the Deed of
Assignment (Annex 8)[if !supportFootnotes][2][endif] or under the
previous agreement of P20% of P206,000.00.
Complainants, in their Reply, [if !supportFootnotes][3][endif]
vehemently denied the assignment of their rights to
respondent.
Thereafter, this case was referred to the Solicitor
General for investigation, report and recommendation
in our Resolution dated November 21, 1983. The
Office of the Solicitor General considered this case
submitted for resolution on April 30, 1985 by declaring
respondents right to present evidence as considered
waived due to the latters failure to appear on the
scheduled hearings. However, the records from said
Office do not show any resolution.

In October 1998, the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines issued an Order requiring the parties to
manifest whether or not they are still interested in
prosecuting this case, or whether supervening events
have transpired which render this case moot and
academic or otherwise. The copy of said Order sent to
the complainants was received by their counsel on
October 30, 1998 while the copy to the respondent
was returned unclaimed.
Investigating Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo
submitted his report on April 29, 1999 finding
respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Rule
1.01, Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 thereof and
recommends his indefinite suspension from the
practice of law.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines on June 19, 1999, issued a resolution,
the decretal portion of which reads:
RESOLUTION NO. XIII-99-151
Adm. Case No. 2519
Teodoro R. Rivera, et al. vs.
Atty. Sergio Angeles
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in 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 an amendment that Atty. Sergio
Angeles is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
for his having been found guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with
his client.
The Court finds merit in the recommendation of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondents act
of deceit and malpractice indubitably demonstrated his

failure to live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The

Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the importance of
integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers
equipment in the practice of his profession.[if !supportFootnotes][4]
[endif] For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants
for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a
member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.[if !
supportFootnotes][5][endif]

The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer

to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his
client but such right should not be exercised
whimsically by appropriating to himself the money
intended for his clients. There should never be an
instance where the victor in litigation loses everything
he won to the fees of his own lawyer.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles, is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR for having been found
guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately and
copies thereof furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
appended to respondents personal record.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 3910
June 28, 2001
JOSE S. DUCAT, JR., complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. and CRISPULO DUCUSIN,
respondents.
RESOLUTION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
On August 14, 2000, a Decision was rendered by this Court in the aboveentitled case, finding respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. guilty of gross
misconduct. The dispositive portion of the Court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. is hereby
found guilty of gross misconduct, and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR with a warning that a repetition of the same

or similar act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Villalon is further
directed to deliver to the registered owner, complainant Jose Ducat Jr., the
latter's TCT No. M-3023 covering the subject property within a period of sixty
(60) days from receipt of this Decision, at his sole expense; and that failure
on his part to do so will result in his disbarment.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Villalon's personal record in
the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof be furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
From the afore-quoted Decision respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. seeks
this reconsideration.
The finding of guilt for gross misconduct was based on the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines upon whom the case was referred for investigation. We again
quote the said findings for emphasis:
Complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat, Sr., testified in a straightforward,
spontaneous and candid manner. The sincerity and demeanor they displayed
while testifying before the Commission inspire belief as to the truth of what
they are saying. More importantly, respondent failed to impute any ill motive
on the part of the complainant and his witness which can impel them to
institute the instant complaint and testify falsely against him. To be sure, the
testimony of the complainant and his witness deserves the Commission's full
faith and credence.
Respondent's evidence, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. His
defense (that he considered himself the owner of the subject property which
was allegedly given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr.) rings hollow in the face of a
welter of contravening and incontrovertible facts.
FIRST, the registered owner of the subject property is complainant Jose
Ducat, Jr. Accordingly, respondent (being a lawyer) knew or ought to know
that Jose Ducat, Sr. could not possibly give to him the said property unless
the former is duly authorized by the complainant through a Special Power of
Attorney. No such authorization has been given. Moreover, Jose Ducat, Sr.
has vigorously denied having given the subject property to the respondent.
This denial is not too difficult to believe considering the fact that he (Jose
Ducat, Sr.) is not the owner of said property.
SECOND, being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know that
conveyance of a real property, whether gratuitously or for a consideration,
must be in writing. Accordingly, it is unbelievable that he would consider
himself the owner of the subject property on the basis of the verbal or oral
"giving" of the property by Jose Ducat, Sr. no matter how many times the
latter may have said that.
THIRD, the Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land (Exh. "1" for the respondent and
Exh. "A-2" for the complainant) allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Sr. in favor
of respondent Atty. Arsenio Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. covering the
subject parcel of land which respondent prepared allegedly upon instruction

of Jose Ducat, Sr. is of dubious character. As earlier adverted to, Jose Ducat,
Sr. is not the owner of said property. Moreover, said Deed of Sale of Parcel of
Land is a falsified document as admitted by the respondent himself when he
said that the signature over the typewritten name Maria Cabrido (wife of Jose
Ducat, Sr.) was affixed by Jose Ducat, Sr. Being a lawyer, respondent knew
or ought to know that the act of Jose Ducat, Sr. in affixing his wife's signature
is tantamount to a forgery. Accordingly, he should have treated the said Deed
of Sale of Parcel of Land has (sic) a mere scrap of worthless paper instead of
relying on the same to substantiate his claim that the subject property was
given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. Again, of note is the fact that Jose Ducat, Sr.
has vigorously denied having executed said document which denial is not too
difficult to believe in the light of the circumstances already mentioned.
FOURTH, the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property (Exh. "2" for the
respondent and Exh. "A-3" for the complainant) allegedly executed by Jose
Ducat, Jr. in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. over the subject property (which
respondent claims he prepared upon instruction of Jose Ducat, Sr.) is likewise
of questionable character. Complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. has vigorously denied
having executed said document. He claims that he has never sold said
property to Andres Canares, Jr. whom he does not know; that he has never
appeared before Atty. Crispulo Ducusin to subscribe to the document; and
that he has never received the amount of P450,000.00 representing the
consideration of said transaction. More importantly, the infirmity of the said
Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property was supplied by the respondent no
less when he admitted that there was no payment of P450,000.00 and that
the same was placed in the document only to make it appear that the
conveyance was for a consideration. Accordingly, and being a lawyer,
respondent knew or ought to know the irregularity of his act and that he
should have treated the document as another scrap of worthless paper
instead of utilizing the same to substantiate his defense.1
We remain convinced that respondent was remiss in his duty to abide by his
sworn oath as a member of the bar to "do no falsehood nor consent to its
commission"2 and further violated the mandate of his profession to "uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."3
In the instant case, after a review of the records, we note that this is the first
and only administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Villalon in his long
career as a member of the bar. At one time, he was even the President of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Manila 1 Chapter, and as such he
introduced various programs to uphold the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the legal profession and to uplift the welfare of his brethren.
Furthermore, it appears that as of July 8, 1997, respondent Atty. Villalon
already returned to the complainant himself the owner's duplicate of the
subject TCT No. M-3023 and the complainant acknowledged receipt4 thereof,
thus there is a need to delete the directive to deliver the said TCT from the
Court's Decision. Hence, we agree to reduce the penalty imposed on
respondent Atty. Villalon.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,

and MODIFIES the Decision dated August 14, 2000 in that respondent Atty.
Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of SIX (6) MONTHS only with a warning that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The directive in the Decision to
deliver TCT No. M-3023 to complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. is DELETED, the
delivery thereof having been accomplished as of July 8, 1997.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of respondent
as an attorney and as a member of the Integrated Bar, and furnished the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.