Maria
Earl Beverly C. Ceniza vs. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia
A.C.
No. 6166. October 2, 2009
Facts:
On
May 3, 2002, Maria Earl Beverly C. Ceniza, complainant, sought the legal
services of the Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, respondent, in regard to the share of
her mother-in-law in the estate of her husband Carlos Ceniza. As she had no money
to pay for attorney's fees since her mother-in-law would arrive from the United
States only in June 2002, respondent made her sign a promissory note for
P32,000.00, which amount was lent by Domingo Natavio. After her mother-in-law
arrived and paid the loan, respondent furnished them a copy of the complaint
for partition and recovery of ownership/possession representing legitime but
with no docket number on it. They kept on following up the progress of the
complaint. However, three months lapsed before respondent informed them that it
was already filed in court. It was then that they received a copy of the
complaint with "Civil Case No. 4198" and a rubber stamped
"RECEIVED" thereon. However, when complainant verified the status of
the case with the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur,
she was informed that no case with said title and docket number was filed.
Further, complainant
alleged that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for intending
to file the complaint in Davao del Sur when the properties to be recovered were
located in Koronadal, South Cotabato and Malungon, Sarangani Province, in
violation of the rule on venue that real actions shall be filed in the place
where the property is situated. Complainant also alleged that respondent forged
the signature of her husband, Carlito C. Ceniza, in the Affidavit of Loss
attached to a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate
of title filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Digos City, Branch 20, in
Misc. Case No. 114-2202. On July 25, 2003 filed with the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Maria Earl Beverly C. Ceniza charged Atty. Vivian G. Rubia with
grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and falsification of public
documents.
Issue:
Whether
or not the respondent violated Canon 18 and Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Yes.
In accusing respondent of falsification of public document, complainant alleged
that respondent misrepresented to her that the complaint was already filed in
court, when in fact, upon verification with the Regional Trial Court Clerk of
Court, it was not. Such misrepresentation is shown by the copy of the complaint
with a stamped "RECEIVED" and docket number thereon. Apart from said
allegations, complainant has not proferred any proof tending to show that
respondent deliberately falsified a public document.
A perusal of the
records shows that complainant's evidence consists solely of her
Affidavit-Complaint and the annexes attached therewith. She did not appear in
all the mandatory conferences set by the investigating commissioner in order to
give respondent the chance to test the veracity of her assertions. It is one
thing to allege gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or falsification of
public document and another to demonstrate by evidence the specific acts
constituting the same.
Indeed, complainant has
no way of knowing the surrounding circumstances behind the filing of the
complaint by respondent's staff because she was not present when the same was
filed with the trial court. Complainant failed to disprove by preponderant
evidence respondent's claim that the case was not filed but was in fact
withdrawn after it was stamped with "RECEIVED" and assigned with a
docket number. The Supreme Court find this explanation satisfactory and
plausible considering that the stamp did not bear the signature of the
receiving court personnel, which is normally done when pleadings are received
by the court. Further, the certification of the RTC Clerk of Court that the
complaint was not filed and that "CIVIL CASE NO. 4198" pertained to
another case, did not diminish the truthfulness of respondent's claim, but even
tended to bolster it. Necessarily, as the complaint was not filed, docket number
"4198" indicated in the copy of the complaint was assigned to another
case thereafter filed in court. Thus, for lack of preponderant evidence, the
investigating commissioner's ruling that respondent was guilty of falsification
of public document, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, has no factual
basis to stand on.
However, the Supreme
Court finds that respondent committed some acts for which she should be
disciplined or administratively sanctioned. The Supreme Court found nothing
illegal or reprehensible in respondent's act of charging an acceptance fee of
P32,000.00, which amount appears to be reasonable under the circumstances. The
impropriety lies in the fact that she suggested that complainant borrow money
from Domingo Natavio for the payment thereof. This act impresses upon the Court
that respondent would do nothing to the cause of complainant's mother-in-law
unless payment of the acceptance fee is made. Her duty to render legal services
to her client with competence and diligence should not depend on the payment of
acceptance fee, which was in this case promised to be paid upon the arrival of
complainant's mother-in-law in June 2002, or barely a month after respondent
accepted the case.
Respondent's
transgression is compounded further when she severed the lawyer-client
relationship due to overwhelming workload demanded by her new employer Nakayama
Group of Companies, which constrained her to return the money received as well
as the records of the case, thereby leaving her client with no representation.
Standing alone, heavy workload is not sufficient reason for the withdrawal of
her services. Moreover, respondent failed to maintain an open line of
communication with her client regarding the status of their complaint. Clearly,
respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath which imposes upon every member of the
bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
Canon 18, and Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.