Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Velasco vs.

Doroin

Facts:

This case refers to a disbarment complaint filed by Mary Jane Velasco against respondent lawyers, Atty
Charlie Doroin and Atty Hector Centeno, for forgery and falsification constitutive of malpractice.

The complainant, Mary Jane Velasco, is the child of Dr. Eduardo Doroin, who died on January 21, 1996
in Papua New Guinea. In the settlement of his estate, Mary Jane Velasco was assigned as the
Administratix and the respondents were the collaborating counsels for Oppositor, Josephine Abarquez.
Atty. Charlie Doroin, fooled complainant by deceitful means into making her sign an extra-judicial
settlement and deed of partition , allotting complainant the sum of Php 1,216,078.00, giving the paramour
of complainant’s father, Josephine Abarquez, Php 7, 296,468.00 and also allotting Php 1,216,075.00 each
for the alleged illegitimate brothers and sister, alleging that such sharing is in accordance with the law. No
share was given the complainant’s mother, the legal wife of Dr. Eduardo Doroin. To partially satisfy the
share of Velasco, Atty. Doroin asked her to sign a paper which was an alleged Confirmation of Authority
to Sell the property of complainant’s father located at Kingspoint subdivision, Bagbag, Novaliches,
Quezon City. Velasco told Atty. Doroin that she will first consult a lawyer regarding the legality of the
said Confirmation of Authority to Sell before she signs the same. Eventually, she was not able to sign
such document. When she visited the site sometime in June 1996, there was no house constructed thereon,
but when she visited again on January 1999, there was already a four-door townhouse constructed.
Complainant learned that Atty Doroin sold the property by forging the signature of her late father. Atty.
Hector Centeno, a notary public, knowing that complainant’s father was already dead as of January 21,
1996, made it appear in the Deed of Absolute Sale, that complainant’s father appeared before him in
Quezon City on January 17, 1997. Thus this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector Centeno are guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath
and Rule 1.01, Canon 01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which would merit disbarment.

Held:

Yes, both are guilty. However, the penalty to be imposed on both shall differ. Their guilt is beyond
dispute. However, the court is mindful that disbarment is a grave penalty considering that the license to
practice law sustains a lawyer’s primary means of livelihood. Atty Charlie Doroin is suspended
indefinitely whereas Atty. Hector Centeno is disbarred. The Court cannot be as lenient with Atty. Centeno
for he also committed a criminal offense when he falisificated a public document and thereafter
absconded from the criminal proceeding against him after having posted bail.

Potrebbero piacerti anche