Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > September 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. 73751 September 24, 1986 - ROMAN R. VILLALON, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 73751. September 24, 1986.]

ROMAN R. VILLALON, JR., ROMAN R.C. III, ROMAN F.C. IV, ROMAN A.C. V., JOSE CLARO C. and ARSENIO ROY C., all surnamed VILLALON, Petitioners, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (FOURTH SPECIAL CASES DIVISION), HON. INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN (PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XXIX AT SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION), CATALINA NEVAL VDA. DE EBUIZA, CHILDREN OF PATROCINIO EBUIZA (JUSTINA, MARIANO, FELICIDAD, FRANCISCO, EUGENIA, MARIA, MARCIANA, and SIMEON, all surnamed EBUIZA), Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; MAY BE AVAILED OF TO CONTEST AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. — Certiorari may be availed of to contest an interlocutory order to correct a patent abuse of discretion by the lower Court in issuing the same, (Sanchez v. Zosa, 68 SCRA 171 [1975]). It may also be applied for when the broader interests of justice so require or when ordinary appeal is not an adequate remedy open to petitioners, while procedurally correct, would then inadequate and ineffective for purposes of impeachment. the broader interests of justice would then require that petitioners be given sufficient latitude to present and prove their impeaching evidence for judicial appreciation.

2. ID.; COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT; CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCEEDINGS; MAY BE WAIVED BY THE LAWYER AFFECTED. — While proceedings against attorneys should, indeed, be private and confidential except for the final order which shall be made public, (Section 10, Rule 139), that confidentiality is a privilege/right which may be waived by the very lawyer in whom and for the protection of whose personal and professional reputation it is vested, pursuant to the general principle that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to public policy, among others, (Article 6, Civil Code).


R E S O L U T I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


On May 16, 1979, Civil Case No. 2799 for "Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Recovery of Possession and Damages" was filed by private respondent Catalina NEVAL Vda. de Ebuiza, mother of the other private respondents all surnamed Ebuiza, against petitioner Atty. Roman R. Villalon, Jr. (briefly, petitioner Villalon) and his sons, before the then Court of First Instance of La Union (the Trial Court), for the recovery of a parcel of land located at Urbiztondo, San Juan, La Union.

The property involved was also the subject of a Disbarment Case (Adm. Case No. 1488) previously filed on July 22, 1975 with this Court by private respondent Francisco EBUIZA, charging petitioner Villalon with falsification of a deed of absolute sale of that property in his and his sons’ favor, but which petitioner Villalon claimed to have been his contingent fee for the professional services he had rendered to EBUIZA’s parents for successfully handling Civil Case No. 1418 entitled "Paulino Ebuiza, Et. Al. v. Patrocinio Ebuiza, Et. Al." before the then Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch II. The Disbarment Case was referred by this Court to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation where testimonial evidence was received. The case still pends thereat.

In the course of the trial of the Civil Case, petitioners introduced in evidence the testimonies of some of the private respondents, namely, NEVAL, EBUIZA, and Justina Ebuiza San Juan (NEVAL, et als.), in the Disbarment Case for the purpose of impeaching their testimonies in the Civil Case.

Private respondents filed a Motion to Strike from the records of the Civil Case all matters relating to the proceedings in the Disbarment Case. Over petitioners’ opposition, on September 20, 1985, the Trial Court issued its questioned Order granting the Motion to Strike. The dispositive portion of said Order reads:chanrobles law library

"WHEREFORE, finding the motion to be well-taken, and as prayed for in the motion, all direct references to the proceedings in the disbarment case against Atty. Villalon, Jr. are hereby ordered striking (sic) out from the records and henceforth, further references to such matters are barred."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Trial Court opined that the admission of the contested evidence would violate Section 10, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court providing that "proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential." It maintained that petitioner Villalon "is not at liberty to waive the privilege of confidentiality" of the proceedings in the Disbarment Case considering the public interest involved "even if it would serve his interest," and that Section 10, Rule 139 provides no exception.

Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied on October 17, 1985, Petitioners, resorted to a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus before the respondent Appellate Court to nullify the Order of September 20, 1985 and to require the Trial Court to allow the impeaching evidence to remain in the records of the Civil Case.

On February 3, 1986, respondent Appellate Court denied due course and dismissed the Petition holding that "rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of separate appeal or review on certiorari." Moreover, it reasoned out that, assuming the Trial Court erred in rejecting petitioners’ proffered evidence, their recourse is to make a formal offer of the evidence under Rule 132, Section 35 of the Rules. The reconsideration of said ruling sought by petitioners was denied for lack of merit on February 19, 1986.

Petitioners now avail of this Petition for Review on Certiorari praying among others, for the annulment of respondent Appellate Court’s Decision, which sustained the Trial Court Orders of September 20, 1985 and October 17, 1985, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

We find merit in the Petition.

Petitioners introduced the testimonies of private respondents’ witnesses in the Disbarment Case for purposes of impeaching their credibility in the Civil Case. 1 Petitioners claim that private respondents’ witnesses "have given conflicting testimonies on important factual matters in the disbarment case, which are inconsistent with their present testimony and which would accordingly cast a doubt on their credibility." 2 That is a defense tool sanctioned by Sections 15 and 16 of Rule 132 providing:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 15. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness. — A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witnesses, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.

"Sec. 16. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so; allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them."cralaw virtua1aw library

By issuing its Order to strike, the Trial Court deprived petitioners of their right to impeach the credibility of their adverse parties’ witnesses by proving that on former occasions they had made statements inconsistent with the statements made during the trial, despite the fact that such statements are material to the issues in the Civil Case, The subject matter involved in the disbarment proceedings i.e., the alleged falsification of the deed of absolute sale in petitioners’ favor, is the same issue raised in the Civil Case wherein the annulment of the said deed of absolute sale is sought.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Admittedly, said Order is interlocutory in character. However, since it was issued in patent abuse of discretion, Certiorari lies. Certiorari may be availed of to contest an interlocutory order to correct a patent abuse of discretion by the lower Court in issuing the same. 3 It may also be applied for when the broader interests of justice so require or when ordinary appeal is not an adequate remedy, 4 as in this case. The offer of evidence, suggested by respondent Appellate Court as a remedy open to petitioners, while procedurally correct, would be inadequate and ineffective for purposes of impeachment. The broader interests of justice would then require that petitioners be given sufficient latitude to present and prove their impeaching evidence for judicial appreciation.

While proceedings against attorneys should, indeed, be private and confidential except for the final order which shall be made public, 5 that confidentiality is a privilege/right which may be waived by the very lawyer in whom and for the protection of whose personal and professional reputation it is vested, pursuant to the general principle that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to public policy, among others. 6 In fact, the Court also notes that even private respondents’ counsel touched on some matters testified to by NEVAL in the disbarment proceedings and which were the subject of cross examination.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby SETS ASIDE respondent Appellate Court’s Decision dated February 3, 1986, and Resolution dated February 19, 1986, and directs the Regional Trial Court of La Union, at San Fernando, to allow the testimonies of private respondents (plaintiffs below), more specifically those of Catalina Neval Vda. de Ebuiza, Francisco Ebuiza and Justina Ebuiza San Juan, given in Administrative Case No. 1488 and all other references thereto to remain in the records of Civil Case No. 2799 entitled "Catalina Neval Vda. de Ebuiza, Plaintiff, versus Roman R. Villalon, Jr., Et Al., Defendants; Children of Patrocinio Ebuiza: Justina, Et Al., all surnamed Ebuiza, Intervenors."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby lifted.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Paras and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 733.

2. ibid, pp. 746-747.

3. Sanchez v. Zosa, 68 SCRA 171 (1975).

4. Sanchez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 327 (1976).

5. Section 10, Rule 139.

6. Article 6, Civil Code.




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






September-1986 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN T. BURGOS

  • G.R. No. L-66389 September 8, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TSANG HIN WAI

  • G.R. No. L-27421 September 12, 1986 - ANITA MANG-OY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72670 September 12, 1986 - SATURNINA GALMAN, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-459-P September 15, 1986 - THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. NUMERIANO GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-29014 September 15, 1986 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. LAND AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-29267 September 15, 1986 ss elec

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-38962 September 15, 1986 - FRANCISCA SOTO v. MARINA S. JARENO

  • G.R. No. L-63728 September 15, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM CANADA

  • G.R. No. L-69674 September 15, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIOLETO ABIGAN

  • G.R. No. 70067 September 15, 1986 - CARLOS P. GALVADORES, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 70443 September 15, 1986 - BRAULIO CONDE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72188 September 15, 1986 - RODOLFO EUSEBIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74824 September 15, 1986 - LEONCIO BAYACA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75074 September 15, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR OCAYA

  • G.R. Nos. L-57333-37 September 16, 1986 - CECILIA C. BARRETTO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 72719 September 18, 1986 - JUANITO MONIZA, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-68379-81 September 22, 1986 - EVELIO B. JAVIER v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-68699 September 22, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOGENES MAGDUEÑO

  • G.R. No. L-27434 September 23, 1986 - GENARO GOÑI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-69152 September 23, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PALMA

  • G.R. No. L-69188 September 23, 1986 - MIGUEL J. VILLAOR v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 71388 September 23, 1986 - MARIA MONSERRAT R. KOH v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.M. No. R-177-MTJ September 24, 1986 - ZENAIDA C. SALVADOR v. BIENVENIDO S. SALAMANCA

  • G.R. No. L-28032 September 24, 1986 - FRANCISCA T. DE PAPA v. DALISAY T. CAMACHO

  • G.R. No. L-38185 September 24, 1986 - HILARIO RAMIREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-39402 September 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-46268 September 24, 1986 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. L-47994-97 September 24, 1986 - LIDELIA MAXIMO v. NICOLAS GEROCHI, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-50374-76 September 24, 1986 - ESTATE OF RODOLFO JALANDONI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51983 September 24, 1986 - ADORACION VALERA BRINGAS v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-63453 September 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO ADONES

  • G.R. No. L-66620 September 24, 1986 - REMEDIO V. FLORES v. HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS

  • G.R. No. L-66917 September 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO O. AMONCIO

  • G.R. No. L-67842 September 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO MOLERO

  • G.R. No. L-68086 September 24, 1986 - AUGUSTO GASPAR v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-68648 September 24, 1986 - MARTINIANO SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-69620 September 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. PATOG

  • G.R. No. 73336 September 24, 1986 - ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73751 September 24, 1986 - ROMAN R. VILLALON, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-49940 September 25, 1986 - GEMMA R. HECHANOVA v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-67347 September 25, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PARILLA

  • A.M. No. R-351-RTJ September 26, 1986 - ABRAHAM L. RAMIREZ v. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG

  • G.R. No. L-39119 September 26, 1986 - FELICIANA BUMANLAG v. ANACLETO B. ALZATE

  • G.R. No. L-49261 September 26, 1986 - ANGELA ESTATE, INC. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-37937 September 30, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO VALLENTE

  • G.R. No. L-48437 September 30, 1986 - MANTRADE/FMMC DIVISION EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION v. FROILAN M. BACUNGAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-61356-57 September 30, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICISIMO JARA

  • G.R. No. L-62133 September 30, 1986 - EDITHA L. LIRA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66575 September 30, 1986 - ADRIANO MANECLANG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 71229 September 30, 1986 - HANIL DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73245 September 30, 1986 - LAMSAN TRADING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.