In Natanauan v. Tolentino, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino for three years, finding him guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found substantial evidence of Atty. Tolentino’s involvement in the falsification of documents related to a land sale, demonstrating a lack of honesty and integrity expected of a member of the Bar. This case underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers.

Deceptive Deeds: Can a Lawyer Be Held Accountable for Falsifying Property Transactions?

This case revolves around a disbarment complaint filed by Dolores Natanauan against Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, accusing him of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. The dispute stems from a land transaction in Tagaytay City, where Dolores and her siblings sold a parcel of land to Alejo Tolentino, Atty. Tolentino’s brother. The problems began when it became clear that the title transfer involved falsified documents and a series of questionable transactions that ultimately benefitted Atty. Tolentino and his corporation, Buck Estate, Inc. The core legal question is whether Atty. Tolentino’s actions constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

Dolores presented evidence indicating that Atty. Tolentino orchestrated the falsification of a Deed of Sale and a Joint Affidavit to facilitate the transfer of the land. The falsified Deed of Sale, dated August 3, 1979, purportedly showed Dolores’s deceased father, Jose Natanauan, and others selling the property, which was impossible since Jose had passed away in 1977. A Joint Affidavit dated August 6, 1979, also bore Jose’s forged signature. Adding to the complexity, another Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, surfaced, showing Atty. Tolentino as the buyer of the same property. This document was notarized by Perfecto P. Fernandez, who was later found not to be a commissioned notary public.

These discoveries led Dolores to believe that Atty. Tolentino was engaging in fraudulent activities to acquire the land for himself. Further investigation revealed that the property was registered under the name of Buck Estate, Inc., where Atty. Tolentino was a stockholder, and subsequently mortgaged to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. An Affidavit dated December 2, 1980, signed by Alejo and Filomena Tolentino, attested that the property truly belonged to Atty. Tolentino, which he conformed to. These pieces of evidence painted a picture of deceit and manipulation, prompting Dolores to file the disbarment complaint against Atty. Tolentino and Perfecto.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case and found Atty. Tolentino liable for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Commissioner noted several circumstances pointing to Atty. Tolentino’s complicity in the falsifications, including his direct involvement in the contract with Dolores, using his brother as a dummy. The subsequent transfer of the land to Buck Estate, Inc., of which he was a stockholder, further implicated him in the fraudulent scheme. Crucially, Atty. Tolentino’s failure to appear before the IBP-CBD during the investigation was also considered a ground for disciplinary action.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s Report, increasing the recommended penalty from a six-month suspension to three years. Atty. Tolentino filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. He then claimed that he was denied due process because he did not receive notices or an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that Atty. Tolentino was given ample opportunity to present his case. The Court emphasized that the filing of a Comment and subsequent Motions for Reconsideration cured any procedural defects.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s decision, emphasizing the high standards of honesty and integrity expected of lawyers. The Court underscored that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and is extended only to those who are worthy and deserving. Lawyers must uphold the Lawyer’s Oath and canons of ethical conduct in both their professional and private capacities. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court specifies the grounds for suspension or disbarment, including deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court found that Dolores sufficiently proved the charges of falsification against Atty. Tolentino. Despite initially claiming that the property was sold to Alejo and Filomena, Dolores later disclosed that Atty. Tolentino was the actual purchaser. The Court highlighted the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, which Atty. Tolentino himself presented in a previous case, Banco De Oro v. Bayuga. This document directly linked him to the land transaction and contradicted his claims of non-involvement. The Court applied the principle that one found in possession and use of a forged document, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger.

Furthermore, the Court found Atty. Tolentino’s denial of his association with Notary Public Perfecto to be dishonest. The March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale was notarized by Perfecto, contradicting Atty. Tolentino’s claim that he did not know or deal with him. This lack of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court was deemed a serious breach of ethical conduct. The Supreme Court cited Silva Vda. de Fajardo v. Bugaring, emphasizing the expectation of complete candor and honesty from lawyers, especially when pleading their own causes.

The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Tolentino’s actions constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His deliberate non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal process and sullied the integrity of the legal profession. Therefore, the Court suspended Atty. Tolentino from the practice of law for three years, sending a clear message about the importance of ethical conduct and accountability within the legal profession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Tolentino’s involvement in falsifying documents related to a land sale constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action. The Supreme Court had to determine if the evidence presented by the complainant, Dolores Natanauan, was sufficient to prove the charges against Atty. Tolentino.
What specific violations was Atty. Tolentino found guilty of?	Atty. Tolentino was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These violations stemmed from his involvement in the falsification of documents, lack of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court, and failure to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
What was the significance of the Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979?	The Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, was significant because Atty. Tolentino himself presented it in a previous case, Banco De Oro v. Bayuga. This document directly linked him to the land transaction and contradicted his claims of non-involvement in the fraudulent activities.
How did the Court address Atty. Tolentino’s claim of denial of due process?	The Court rejected Atty. Tolentino’s claim of denial of due process, stating that he was given ample opportunity to present his case. The filing of a Comment and subsequent Motions for Reconsideration cured any procedural defects that may have existed.
What is the principle regarding possession and use of forged documents?	The Court applied the principle that one found in possession and use of a forged document, without satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger. This principle placed the burden on Atty. Tolentino to provide a credible explanation for his involvement with the falsified documents.
What was the IBP’s role in this case?	The IBP investigated the case, found Atty. Tolentino liable for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended a penalty. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s Report and increased the recommended penalty from a six-month suspension to three years.
Why was Atty. Tolentino’s non-participation in the IBP proceedings considered a violation?	Atty. Tolentino’s deliberate non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings was considered a violation because it demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal process and sullied the integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and uphold the standards of the Bar.
What is the primary purpose of disbarment proceedings?	The primary purpose of disbarment proceedings is to protect the courts and the public from members of the Bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession. It is not meant as a punishment to deprive a lawyer of a means of livelihood, but rather to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
What are the ethical obligations of lawyers regarding candor and honesty?	Lawyers have an ethical obligation to maintain complete candor and honesty, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for their own causes. They are expected to be disciples of truth and must not make a travesty of the truth or mangle the ends of justice.

Natanauan v. Tolentino reinforces the high ethical standards expected of legal professionals in the Philippines. This decision serves as a reminder that lawyers must uphold the law, maintain honesty, and respect legal processes. Failure to adhere to these standards can result in severe disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law, to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DOLORES NATANAUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 62375, October 11, 2016