Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84115:59401&catid=1594&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 23:58:15+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, Respondents.
SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, Respondents.
This pertains to the complaint for disbarment filed by Spouses Rogelio Amatorio and Aida Amatorio (Aida) (complainants) against Attys. Francisco Dy Yap (Francisco) and Whelma Siton-Yap (respondents) for violating Rules 1.01, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
As foretold by Atty. Paras, the complainants experienced unpleasant backlash which were allegedly instigated by the respondents who come from a very powerful and affluent clan. They received threats of physical harm and Aida’s continued employment as a public school teacher was put in jeopardy. Also, suspicious-looking individuals were seen loitering around their house. When they refused to yield to the respondents’ intimidation, the latter resorted to the filing of charges against them, to wit: (1) an administrative case against Aida for failure to pay the same debts subject of this case; and (2) a criminal case for perjury against the complainants. To alleviate their situation, they filed a Joint-Affidavit,7 seeking the assistance of this Court to warn the respondents and to stop them from employing deplorable acts upon them.
There is substantial evidence that Respondent Francisco Yap ha[s] deliberately neglected, at the very least, offered and/or pleaded inaccurate allegations/testimonies to purposely mislead or confuse the civil courts in Dumaguete City. Francisco Yap failed to controvert the existence and the authenticity of the Acknowledgment Receipt dated May 21, 2001 which bore his signature and written in a “Yap Law Office” letterhead. Such documentary evidence supports the theory of the Complainants that there was indeed an out-of-court settlement prior to the pre-trial hearings and that they were most likely assured that these cases would be dismissed. Their absence during the pre-trial hearings evidently resulted to decisions adverse to them. Moreover, the Motions for the Writ of Execution did not fail to mention the existence of partial payments and the prior agreement which, if disclosed, would have led the court not to issue such writs. Since Respondent Francisco Yap’s signature appear in all the Acknowledgement Receipts and in all Motions filed in the civil courts, he alone should be penalized. On the other hand, Respondent Whelma Siton Yap should not be penalized in the absence of any evidence of her participation in such conduct. x x x.
On August 9, 2007, the complainants filed a Manifestation,15 terminating the services of Atty. Paras and/or Paras-Enojo and Associates as their counsel for the reason that they can no longer afford the services of a private counsel.
Surprisingly, on the same day, the complainants executed a Judicial Affidavit,16 disclaiming knowledge and participation in the preparation of the complaint and the pleadings filed on their behalf by Atty. Paras in connection with the disbarment case against the respondents. They claimed that they merely signed the pleadings but the contents thereof were not explained to them in a dialect which they understood. They likewise expressed lack of intention to file a disbarment case against the respondents and that, on the contrary, they were very much willing to settle and pay their indebtedness to them. Further, they asserted that it was not the respondents, but Atty. Paras who instructed them not to attend the pre-trial conference of the cases which eventually resulted to a judgment by default against them. They claimed that Atty. Paras told them that he will be the one to attend the pre-trial conference to settle matters with the respondents and the court but he did not show up on the scheduled date. They also asseverated that most of the statements contained in the complaint for disbarment were false and that they wished to withdraw the said complaint.
On August 18, 2011, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the admission of the complainants in the Judicial Affidavit dated August 9, 2007 proved that the disbarment case filed against them was just fabricated by Atty. Paras. They pointed out the complainants’ statement that they were just made to sign the complaint for disbarment by Atty. Paras to retaliate against them for having filed a case against him for falsification of documents which sent him to prison for some time.
The instant case is now referred to this Court for final action.
The Court notes that on September 16, 2011, the complainants filed a Motion to Admit Judicial Affidavit with Motion to Dismiss and/or Withdraw Complaint,21 reiterating their claim that the filing of the disbarment was a product of Atty. Paras’ maneuverings and that the allegations against the respondents stated therein were false.
After a careful examination of the facts of this case, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
Notably, the respondents seek a reconsideration of the resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors primarily on the basis of the Judicial Affidavit dated August 9, 2007, wherein the complainants cleared them of the charges of misconduct and turned the blame on their own counsel, Atty. Paras, for allegedly having made up the allegations in the disbarment complaint. When the IBP Board of Governors sustained the imposition of suspension to Francisco, the complainants themselves submitted a motion to admit the said judicial affidavit to this Court, together with a motion to dismiss and withdraw complaint.
The question now is whether the statements of the complainants, specifically contesting the truthfulness of the allegations hurled against the respondents in their own complaint for disbarment necessarily results to Francisco’s absolution. The answer is in the negative.
The Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated to guide the members of the bar by informing them of the deportment expected of them in leading both their professional and private lives. Primarily, it aims to protect the integrity and nobility of the legal profession, to breed honest and principled lawyers and prune the association of the unworthy.
It is for the foregoing reason that the Court cannot simply yield to complainants’ change of heart by refuting their own statements against the respondents and praying that the complaint for disbarment they filed be dismissed. It bears emphasizing that any misconduct on the part of the lawyer not only hurts the client’s cause but is even more disparaging on the integrity of the legal profession itself. Thus, for tarnishing the reputation of the profession, a lawyer may still be disciplined notwithstanding the complainant’s pardon or withdrawal from the case for as long as there is evidence to support any finding of culpability. A case for suspension or disbarment may proceed “regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainants, if the facts proven so warrant.”23 It follows that the withdrawal of the complainant from the case, or even the filing of an affidavit of desistance, does not conclude the administrative case against an erring lawyer.
Therefore, in the instant case, the Court cannot just set aside the finding of culpability against the respondents merely because the complainants have decided to forgive them or settle matters amicably after the case was completely evaluated and reviewed by the IBP. The complainants’ forgiveness or even withdrawal from the case does not ipso facto obliterate the misconduct committed by Francisco. To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the complainants to withdraw the disbarment case considering that they had already presented and supported their claims with convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated a resolution on the basis thereof.
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
The complainants’ belated claim that the respondents were faultless and that the allegations stated in the disbarment complaint were just fabricated by their former counsel cannot stand against the clear and preponderant evidence they earlier presented. It is inexplicable how the complainants could now claim that the respondents were blameless when the records tell otherwise. That they were simply duped by Atty. Paras into signing the numerous pleadings he filed on their behalf is hardly believable considering that Aida is well-lettered, being a public school teacher. They also do not claim that they were prevented from reading the contents of the pleadings or that their signatures were simply forged. At any rate, while it may be true that Atty. Paras fabricated some of the facts stated in the disbarment complaint, these matters are trivial and do not relate to the facts material to the charge of misconduct against Francisco. What clearly appears is that the facts material to the violation committed by Francisco are well-established notwithstanding Atty. Paras’ supposed fabrication of some insignificant particulars.
WHEREFORE, for deliberately misleading the Court, Atty. Francisco Dy Yap is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator which shall circulate the same in all courts in the country, and spread upon the personal records of the respondent lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
22San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Atty. Romanillos, 499 Phil. 99, 107 (2005).
23Go v. Candoy, 128 Phil. 461, 465 (1967).
24Munar v. Flores, 207 Phil. 390, 393 (1983).
25Cruz v. Atty. Centron, 484 Phil. 671, 675 (2004).

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