Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > October 1983 Decisions > Adm. Case No. 1092 October 27, 1983 - VICENTE LIM v. FRANCISCO G. ANTONIO

210 Phil. 226:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[Adm. Case No. 1092. October 27, 1983.]

VICENTE LIM, Complainant, v. ATTORNEY FRANCISCO G. ANTONIO, Respondent.

The Solicitor General for complainant.

Francisco G. Antonio in his own behalf.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEYS; DISBARMENT; COMPLAINT THEREFOR IN CASE AT BAR, UNFOUNDED. — The dignity and the honor of the profession require that acts unworthy of membership in the bar should be visited with the appropriate penalty. The charge against respondent is of a serious character. If in fact there was such a violation of the lawn charged, he should be duly penalized. It is quite clear, however, that the complaint is unfounded. It was the product of ill-will, the desire of complainant to avenge himself. It certainly was not made in good faith. If it were so, its dismissal would have sufficed. To repeat, such is not the case. As the Report made clear, the complaint arouse from a feeling of resentment, even of hate.

2. ID.; ID.; PENALTY OF CENSURE IMPOSED ON COMPLAINANT IN CASE AT BAR. — To allow complainant to trifle with the Court, to make use of the judicial process as an instrument of retaliation, would be a reflection on the rule of law. lie should be held to strict accountability, considering that this is his second attempt. Such stubbornness compounds the gravity of his offense. He appears to be incorrigible. At the very least, therefore, he should be censured.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, C.J.:


The charge imputed to respondent, a member of the bar, is that he changed his name, without any authority from the courts, from Paquito Lim Antonio Clemente, as appearing in his birth certificate, to Francisco G. Antonio. Such an act, complainant contends, was contrary to law. 1

Respondent was required to answer. He was quite categorical in such answer that at no time had he used an alias and that, therefore, he had not violated the Act in question. Much less had he committed falsification of public documents. He pointed out that his correct surname of Antonio was likewise included in his birth certificate, a photostatic copy of which was enclosed. Submitted likewise was his diploma from Masbate High School in 1953; his certificate of confernment of Bachelor of Business Administration at the University of the East in 1956; his certificate of confernment of Bachelor of Laws from the University of the East in 1961; his official transcript of record from the University of the East; a certification from the Board of Examiners of the Bureau of Civil Service as a registered Certified Public Accountant dated July 22, 1957; and lastly, his certification from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court of his admission to the bar in 1962. In all such annexes, the surname mentioned was that of Antonio. He contended that no court order was required because the change of surname amounted to correction of errors in the school records, pointing out that the court order for change or correction of entry must be in connection with that appearing in the civil register. He explained why in his birth certificate the nickname Paquito was used rather than the correct appellation. No question, according to him, can be raised as to his using the correct name Francisco from birth in all his public or private dealings. He made reference to a previous case, Administrative Case no. 848, which was filed by the same complainant and based on the same evidence. This Court, according to him, dismissed the case in a resolution dated September 30, 1971. The prayer was for the dismissal of the complaint. A reply was required from complainant. It was submitted. Thereafter the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

In the Report of Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, 2 submitted on July 18, 1983, the following appears: "Actually, this is a second case for disbarment filed by the same complainant against the same Respondent." 3 The previous complaint against respondent was that he is a Chinese citizen and therefore disqualified to be a member of the bar. This Court dismissed the case on September 30, 1971. The Report further stated that he was likewise accused of violating Commonwealth Act No. 142 before the City Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. E-148817, which case was dismissed by Judge Antonio Padua Paredes in a decision dated June 4, 1974. It turned out that the principal prosecution witness in such case was the complainant. It was he who was also responsible for filing Criminal Case No. 307 before the Court of First Instance of Masbate again for an alleged violation of the same Act. On August 5, 1974, the Court of First Instance of Masbate, granted a motion to quash. His persistence in harassing is thus quite evident.

Finally, the Report made clear why there is justification to the allegation of respondent "that complainant has been motivated by ‘revenge and bad faith.’" 4 For respondent was the private prosecutor for the falsification of a public document in which the complainant was the accused, the result being the conviction of complainant, and in another case, also for falsification of a public document, with the same result. 5 Moreover, when the complainant was the adverse party, it was respondent who was the defense counsel.

The Solicitor General concluded: "It is clear from all the foregoing that there is no basis in proceeding against Respondent." 6

The Report recommended the dismissal of the complaint. It did not stop there. The Report also called for complainant being admonished. Dismissal of the complaint is warranted. Admonition, however, is too mild a response for the irresponsible conduct of complainant.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The dignity and the honor of the profession require that acts unworthy of membership in the bar should be visited with the appropriate penalty. The charge against respondent is of a serious character. If in fact there was such a violation of the law as charged, he should be duly penalized. It is quite clear, however, that the complaint is unfounded. It was the product of ill-will, the desire of complainant to avenge himself. It certainly was not made in good faith. If it were so, its dismissal would have sufficed. To repeat, such is not the case. As the Report made clear, the complaint arose from a feeling of resentment, even of hate. To allow complainant to trifle with the Court, to make use of the judicial process as an instrument of retaliation, would be a reflection on the rule of law. He should be held to strict accountability, considering that this is his second attempt. Such stubbornness compounds the gravity of his offense. He appears to be incorrigible. At the very least, therefore, he should be censured.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Attorney Francisco G. Antonio is dismissed and complainant Vicente Lim is hereby censured.

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., respondent may sue complainant for damages.

De Castro, J., is on sick leave.

Endnotes:



1. According to Section 1, Republic Act No. 6085 (1969), amending Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142 (1936): "Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonum is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was baptized for the first time, or, in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court: Provided, That persons whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. He was assisted by Asst. Solicitor General Eduardo Montenegro and Solicitor Oswaldo D. Agcaoili.

3. Report, 2.

4. Ibid, 8.

5. Ibid, citing Exhibits 12 and 13 of Answer of Respondent.

6. Ibid, 7.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39683 October 10, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO PERIO-PERIO

    210 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58595 October 10, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. ILARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60577 October 11, 1983 - JOSEFA LEGASPI-SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 20

  • G.R. No. L-61684 October 11, 1983 - ROLANDO ROXAS SURVEYING COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 24

  • G.R. No. L-64397 October 11, 1983 - CARNATION PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 30

  • G.R. No. L-49044 October 12, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

    210 Phil. 32

  • G.R. No. L-61408 October 12, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO CLORES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 51

  • G.R. No. L-57259 October 13, 1983 - ANGEL P. PERAN v. PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH II, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SORSOGON, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 60

  • G.R. No. L-27602 October 15, 1983 - VICENTE CAOILE, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 67

  • G.R. No. L-60706 October 15, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES GREFIEL

    210 Phil. 83

  • G.R. No. L-65162 October 15, 1983 - IN RE: MONICO B. BIGLAEN v. JOSEPHUS RAMAS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 92

  • G.R. No. L-33459 October 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 95

  • Adm. Case No. 1354 October 24, 1983 - COSME ROSELL v. JOSE E. FANTONIAL

  • G.R. No. L-49101 October 24, 1983 - RAOUL S.V. BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 100

  • G.R. No. L-50143 October 24, 1983 - MARIA TEVES VDA. DE BACANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 113

  • G.R. No. L-51906 October 24, 1983 - PLARIDEL C. JOSE v. CHAM SAMCO & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61078 October 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME JABEGUERO

    210 Phil. 119

  • G.R. No. L-63761 October 24, 1983 - IN RE: LETICIA H. GORDULA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 127

  • G.R. No. L-61105 October 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO UNTALASCO, JR., ET AL.

    210 Phil. 132

  • G.R. No. L-31179 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULPIANO YARCIA, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 144

  • G.R. No. L-31949 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO BRECINIO

    210 Phil. 152

  • G.R. No. L-38700 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO CERVANTES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 156

  • G.R. No. L-44429 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO TORRES

    210 Phil. 167

  • G.R. No. L-50300 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO YAP, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 171

  • G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555 October 26, 1983 - HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 187

  • G.R. No. L-60665 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO FLORES

    210 Phil. 208

  • G.R. No. L-61679 October 26, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO OYDOC

    210 Phil. 214

  • G.R. No. L-64731 October 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE, URDANETA, PANGASINAN, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 222

  • Adm. Case No. 1092 October 27, 1983 - VICENTE LIM v. FRANCISCO G. ANTONIO

    210 Phil. 226

  • Adm. Case No. 1422 October 27, 1983 - JESUS V. MERRITT v. HERMINIO H. CACANINDIN

    210 Phil. 230

  • Adm. Case No. 1519 October 27, 1983 - WENCESLAO SUMAPIG v. MACARIO ESMAS, JR.

    210 Phil. 232

  • Adm. Case No. 2266 October 27, 1983 - HERMINIO R. NORIEGA v. EMMANUEL R. SISON

    210 Phil. 236

  • G.R. No. L-24548 October 27, 1983 - WENCESLAO VINZONS TAN v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26746 October 27, 1983 - JUSTO ALCARAZ, ET AL. v. RICARDO RACIMO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-32550 October 27, 1983 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 276

  • G.R. No. L-35336 October 27, 1983 - AMALIA VDA. DE SUAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

    210 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37766 October 27, 1983 - ROGELIA PERARTILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-39835 October 27, 1983 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE v. LINO L. AÑOVER, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 291

  • G.R. No. L-40111 October 27, 1983 - PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-45857 October 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SISON

    210 Phil. 305

  • G.R. No. L-48419 October 27, 1983 - EDUARDO M. LESACA v. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 316

  • G.R. No. L-50320 October 27, 1983 - PHILIPPINE APPAREL WORKERS UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 322

  • G.R. No. L-50419 October 27, 1983 - FRANCISCO K. REDOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53431 October 27, 1983 - BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 338

  • G.R. No. L-55539 October 27, 1983 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 347

  • G.R. No. L-58399 October 27, 1983 - EUSEBIO BERNABE, ET AL. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 349

  • G.R. No. L-58849 October 27, 1983 - ANGEL V. CAGUIOA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-59280 October 27, 1983 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-60716 October 27, 1983 - AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-61289 October 27, 1983 - FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MARIO M. DIZON, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-62339 October 27, 1983 - MARIA LUISA P. MORATA, ET AL. v. VICTOR GO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 367

  • G.R. No. L-62376 October 27, 1983 - MARIA VELASQUEZ, ET AL. v. WILLIAM GEORGE, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 378

  • G.R. No. 63779 October 27, 1983 - ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 384

  • Adm. Case No. 1856 October 28, 1983 - SALVACION E. MARCAYDA v. JUSTINIANO P. NAZ

    210 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-54009 October 28, 1983 - VALLEY GOLF CLUB, INC. v. EMILIO SALAS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-54448 October 28, 1983 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 399

  • G.R. No. L-55337 October 28, 1983 - NINFA F. CUA v. EULALIO D. ROSETE, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 411

  • G.R. No. L-61255 October 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CALIMQUIM

    210 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-63557 October 28, 1983 - LINGNER & FISHER GMBH v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 438

  • G.R. No. L-49891 October 31, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62467 October 31, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. BROQUEZA

    210 Phil. 450