Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40333:adm-case-no-4748-august-4,-2000-victoria-v-radjaie-v-jose-o-alovera&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:54:10+00:00

Document:
VICTORIA V. RADJAIE, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE O. ALOVERA, Respondent.
a)	Almost all orders issued by then Judge Alovera prior to his retirement bear the stamp "RECEIVED" by Branch 17 of RTC-Roxas City, with the initial of the one who received it for filing with the court-record except the Order of January 25, 199S (p. 87 records) admitting, and the Decision dated January 30, 1995 (pp. 88-93, ibid.).
b)	It can also be seen that all the orders issued prior to the retirement were all type-written in the same type-[writer] except the January 25, 1995 Order (p. 87) and the Decision (pp. 88-93) and these two (2) documents appear to have been type-written on the same type-[writer].
c)	It is also a source of wonder why plaintiffs formally offered their evidence one year after the last witness was presented last December 10, 1993.
d)	Even plaintiffs’ formal offer of evidence showed badges of fraud. It was not received by the trial court. Page 67 shows this clearly. It would not be surprising if the same was also inserted into the records on a much later date and Atty. Alberto Villaruz must be made to explain this too.
It was dated January 20, 1995 but the date of the Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) of Atty. Alberto A. Villaruz, counsel for the plaintiffs, was issued only on January 31, 1995. This is shown on Page 71 of the records.
e)	There is no showing that ~e January 25, 1995 Order (p. 87) admitting the formal offer was even received by a Court staff for filing with the records.
f)	The same can be said of the January 30, 1995 Decision (pp. 88-93) which was allegedly decided five (5) days after the order admitting the evidence (p. 87) was allegedly issued. What a swift action from a retiring judge.
g)	A copy of the Decision was not even sent to the counsel for the plaintiffs but is shown to have been received by one of the plaintiffs only on August 1, 1995 (p. 93).
h)	Again, it is beyond the normal experience for a lawyer such as Atty. Villaruz who is a practitioner in the locality and who is in Court almost everyday that he will not follow up if there is already a decision rendered in a case where he was allowed to present evidence ex-parte or even be told about it.
i)	The records show that all orders after the retirement of Mr. Alovera bear the stamp "RECEIVED" by the Court staff who received them for filing in the court records.
Thus, necessitated the filing of the Manifestation 11 by the Office of the Bar Confidant on January 27, 1998, inquiring from the Court whether to proceed with the investigation of the case in view of the aforementioned incidents.
Judge Julius Abela, Nenita M. Aluad, legal researcher, Teresita V. Bauzon, court stenographer, Concepcion Alcazar, clerk-in-charge of civil cases and special proceedings, all of Regional Trial Court, Br. 17, Roxas City, Rosa Dapat, court stenographer of Regional Trial Court, Br. 15, Roxas City and the complainant herself testified as witnesses for the complainant.
The respondent presented as his lone witness, Mrs. Rosa Dapat, who merely testified on the January 10, 1993 proceedings inside his chambers. Respondent himself did not testify and neither did any other witness testify for him, despite the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum on Ireneo Borres and Ludovico Buhat, who both failed to appear at the investigation. In lieu of their oral testimonies, respondent offered and presented their respective affidavits. 13 Complainant chose not to object thereto and even waived her right, through her counsel, to cross-examine them.
2)	The records of Civil Case No. V-6186 were with Judge Jose O. Alovera and remained with him even after his retirement on January 31, 1995. He did not return the record to Mrs. Concepcion Alcazar, Court Clerk III in Charge of Civil Cases.
3)	The record of Civil Case No. V-6186 turned up on the table of Mrs. Alcazar together with the "Offer of Exhibits" of Atty. Villaruz dated January 20, 1995 and the "Order" dated January 25, 1995, after the retirement of Judge Alovera. Both the Offer and the Order admitting the exhibits were not properly filed and do not bear markings of having been received by the court.
4)	The "decision" of Judge Jose O. Alovera, though dated January 30, 1995, was filed with the court on August 1, 1995 by former Judge Alovera himself and because he was no longer a judge his submission was refused.
The "Offer of Exhibits" of Atty. Alberto Villaruz though dated January 20, 1995 bears signature and PTR No. issued on January 31, 1995. This simply means that the pleadings (were) ante dated. It is impossible for Atty. Villaruz to affix his PTR No. dated January 31, 1995 or any date prior to its issuance. The Offer of Exhibits could have been made only on January 31, 1995 or later. Because this is so, the Order of Judge Alovera dated January 25, 1995 is also ante dated and could have been made only on a date beyond the filing of the Offer of Exhibits. So also with the decision of former Judge Alovera dated January 30, 1995.
The Order admitting the exhibits and the decision were made after the retirement of Judge Alovera. He was no longer a judge.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Bar Confidant recommended the disbarment of respondent, declaring that it found more than sufficient evidence to sustain complainant’s charge against respondent that, indeed, the January 30, 1995 decision in Civil Case No. V-6186, which divested complainant of her property in Panay, Capiz, was penned by respondent after his retirement from the judiciary on January 31, 1995.
"I, . . ., do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any man’s cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntary, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. When respondent took the oath as a member of the legal profession, he made a solemn promise to so stand by his pledge. 46 In this covenant, respondent miserably failed.
Given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in this case, the Court finds as appropriate the recommended penalty of the Office of the Bar Confidant in its Report. Such gross misconduct of the respondent brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession and calls for the severance of respondent’s privilege to practice law for life.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., took on leave.
Vitug, J., took no part; close relationship with a party.
Kapunan, J., took no part in view of relations with parties.
1.	In Civil Case No. V-6186 entitled "The Heirs of the Late Faustina Borres (except Victoria Villaruz Radjaie) represented by Arturo V. Agudo, Et. Al. v. Victoria Villaruz Radjaie" for Partition and Accounting.
2.	Complainant initially filed a Letter-Complaint dated February 27, 1996 with the Office of the Court Administrator but subsequently withdrew her complaint Nonetheless, the Court Administrator still conducted an investigation thereon. Thereafter, the Supreme Court referred the administrative complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action, pursuant to the recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator, Zenaida Elepaño, in a memorandum dated October 9, 1996; Rollo, p. 130.
3.	Subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Ferdinand D. Tolentino on September 17, 1996; Exhibit "A", Folder of Exhibits.
4.	Rollo, at p. 224- 227.
7.	These are (a) direct action, i.e., by special civil action for certiorari, if the judgment was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (b) petition for relief from judgment; and (c) independent civil action to annul a judgment, where the alleged defect is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained in the judgment.
8.	Supra. at p. 226.
11.	Id. at p. 235.
12.	Id. at p. 234.
13.	Exhibits "3" and "4" .
14.	Exhibit "C" at p. 44.
15.	Id., at pp. 46, 48, 54, 62 and 66.
16.	People v. Donanito Hijosa.
17.	TSN, Hearing of November 10[PM], 1998, pp. 55-57.
20.	Id., pp. 29, 35-39.
21.	TSN Hearing of November 9 [PM], 1998, pp. 33-34.
24.	Hearing of November 10 [PM], 1998, pp. 48, 58-61.
25.	TSN, Hearing of November 9 [PM], 1998, p. 38.
28.	TSN, Hearing of November 13 [PM], 1998, pp. 45-49.
29.	Id., pp. 30-32, 51-52.
32.	Exhibit "C" at p. 116.
33.	Id., at p. 22.
34.	TSN, Hearing of November 12 [PM], 1998, pp. 20-21.
35.	Exhibit "C" at p. 129.
36.	Id., at p. 132.
37.	TSN, Hearing of November 12 [AM], 1998, pp. 4-5.
39.	Id., pp. 25, 68.
41.	Id., pp. 8-9; Exhibit "C" at p. 337.
42.	TSN, Hearing of November 12 [AM], 1998, pp. 31-32.
44.	In Re: Al Argosino, 270 SCRA 26, 30-31 .
45.	Masinsin v. Albano, 232 SCRA 631, 636-637 .
46.	Investment and Management Services Corporation v. Roxas, 256 SCRA 229, 234 .
47.	Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA S18, 527 ; Cordova v. Labayen, 249 SCRA 172, 184 ; Sanchez v. Brion, 249 SCRA 1, 4 ; Libit v. Oliva, 237 SCRA 375, 378 ; Likong v. Lim, 235 SCRA 414, 419 ; see Co v. Bernardino, 285 SCRA 102, 107 ; Choa v. Chiongson, 260 SCRA 477, 483 .
48.	Businos v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407, 414-415 .
49.	Tapucar v. Tapucar, 293 SCRA 331, 337 .
50.	Reyes v. Gaa, 246 SCRA 64, 67 .

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.