A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991
FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, complainant, vs.
ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON respondent.
FACTS:
As early as January 15, 1987, V & G had
requested the respondent Register of Deeds to register some 163 deeds of sale
with assignment (in favor of the GSIS) of lots of the V & G mortgaged to
GSIS by the lot buyers. There was no action from the respondent.
Another request was made on February 16,
1987 for him to approve or deny registration of the uniform deeds of absolute
sale with assignment. Still no action except to require V & G to submit
proof of real estate tax payment and to clarify certain details about the
transactions.
Although V & G complied with the
desired requirements, respondent Renomeron suspended the registration of the
documents pending compliance by V & G with a certain "special
arrangement" between them, which was that V & G should provide him
with a weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as
pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent's Quezon
City house and lot by V & G or GSIS representatives.
On May 19, 1987, respondent confided to the
complainant that he would act favorably on the 163 registrable documents of V
& G if the latter would execute clarificatory affidavits and send money for
a round trip plane ticket for him.
Because of V & G's failure to give him
pocket money in addition to plane fare, respondent imposed additional
registration requirements. Fed up with the respondent's extortionate tactics,
the complainant wrote him a letter on May 20, 1987 challenging him to act on
all pending applications for registration of V & G within twenty-four (24)
hours.
On May 22, 1987, respondent formally denied
registration of the transfer of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on the
uniform ground that the deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous
as to parties and subject matter.
On May 27, 1987, respondent elevated the
matter en consulta to the Administrator, National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Administration, the NLTDRA ruled that the questioned documents
were registrable. Heedless of the NLTDRA's opinion, respondent continued to sit
on V & Gs 163 deeds of sale with assignment.
Exasperated by respondent's conduct, the
complainant filed with the NLTDRA administrative charges, against respondent
Register of Deeds.
Less than two weeks after filing his
complaint against Renomeron in the NLTDRA, Attorney Collantes also filed in
this Court on June 16, 1987, a disbarment complaint against said respondent.
ISSUE:
whether the respondent register of deeds,
as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasances as a
public official
RULING:
The answer is yes, for his misconduct as a
public official also constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The lawyer's oath, imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a
source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension,
disbarment or other disciplinary action.
The Code of Professional Responsibility
applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks (Canon 6). Just as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials requires public officials and employees to process documents and
papers expeditiously and prohibits them from directly or indirectly having a
financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of
their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in the course of any transaction which may be affected by the
functions of their office, the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a
lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, or delay
any man's cause "for any corrupt motive or interest"
This Court has ordered that only those who
are "competent, honorable, and reliable" may practice the profession
of law for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in the practice
of his calling".
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which
Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have demonstrated his
unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the. He should therefore be
disbarred.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron be disbarred from the practice of law in the
Philippines, and that his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys
Comments
Post a Comment