13-ceniza vs rubia

8/10/2019 13-Ceniza vs Rubia

1/6

MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. A.C. No. 6166CENIZA,

Complainant,

- versus -ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA,

Respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

In a verified complaint dated July 2, 2!!" filed #it$ t$e %ffice of t$e &ar Confidant, 'aria (arl &everlyC. Ceni)a c$ar*ed Atty. +ivian . Ruia #it$ *rave misconduct, *ross i*norance of t$e la# and falsification of

pulic documents.

$e facts of t$e case are as follo#s:

%n 'ay ", 2!!2, complainant sou*$t t$e le*al services of t$e respondent in re*ard to t$e s$are of $er

mot$er-in-la# in t$e estate of $er $usand Carlos Ceni)a. As s$e $ad no money to pay for attorney/s fees since$er mot$er-in-la# #ould arrive from t$e 0nited tates only in June 2!!2, respondent made $er si*n a

promissory note for "2,!!!.!!, #$ic$ amount #as lent y 3omin*o Natavio. After $er mot$er-in-la# arrived

and paid t$e loan, respondent furnis$ed t$em a copy of t$e complaint for partition and recovery ofo#ners$ip4possession representin* le*itimes ut #it$ no doc5et numer on it. $ey 5ept on follo#in* up t$e

pro*ress of t$e complaint. o#ever, t$ree mont$s lapsed efore respondent informed t$em t$at it #as alreadyfiled in court. It #as t$en t$at t$ey received a copy of t$e complaint #it$ 7Civil Case No. 819; and a ruer

stamped 7R(C(I+(3; t$ereon. o#ever, #$en complainant verified t$e status of t$e case #it$ t$e Cler5 ofCourt of t$e Re*ional rial Court of 3avao del ur, s$e #as informed t$at no case #it$ said title and doc5et

numer #as filed.


2/6

'ean#$ile, on Novemer B, 2!!, respondent filed a 'anifestation #it$ 0r*ent 'otion prayin* t$at t$e

administrative complaint e li5e#ise dismissed in vie# of t$e dismissal of t$e criminal case due tocomplainant/s apparent lac5 of interest to prosecute.

%n January 19, 2!!B, t$e I& Investi*atin* Commissioner recommended t$at respondent

e found *uilty of falsification of pulic document and e meted t$e penalty of suspension from

t$e practice of la# for a period of t$ree years. $e report reads in part, as follo#s:

A proceedin* for suspension or disarment is not in any sense a civil action, #$ere t$e

complainant is a plaintiff and t$e respondent la#yer is a defendant. It involved no private

interest. $e complainant or person #$o called t$e attention of t$e court to t$e attorney/smisconduct is in no sense a party and $as *enerally no interest in its outcome ecept as all *ood

citi)ens may $ave in t$e proper administration of ustice. It affords no redress for private

*rievance. ?ean v. Cusi, B CRA 18@

rescindin* from t$e aforeDuoted rulin*, it is t$erefore irrelevant and immaterial if $erein

complainant is not a party to t$e suect civil complaint prepared y t$e respondent. A case ofsuspension or disarment may proceed re*ardless of interest or lac5 of interest of t$e

complainant. E$at matters is #$et$er on t$e asis of t$e facts orne out y t$e record, t$e

c$ar*e $as een proven.

%n t$e payment of t$e acceptance fee in t$e amount of "2,!!!.!!, respondent/s

contention t$at s$e acted as *uarantor of Carlos Ceni)a, complainant/s $usand, #$en $e

orro#ed money from a money lender, 3omin*o Natavio, t$e amount representin* t$eacceptance, does not inspire elief. $e promissory note dated 'ay ", 2!!2, appended as Anne

7A; of t$e complaint-affidavit eloDuently s$o#s t$at consistent #it$ t$e complainant/s

alle*ation, s$e #as made to orro# said amount to e paid as respondent/s acceptance fee. Itears stress t$at t$e date of t$e promissory note is t$e same date #$en respondent/s services #ere

en*a*ed leadin* to t$e preparation of t$e suect civil complaint. Complainant/s alle*ation is

furt$er en$anced y t$e fact t$at suc$ promissory note #as even notari)ed y t$e respondent.

%n t$e alle*ed filin* of t$e suect civil complaint, it is undisputed t$at t$e same #as not

filed efore t$e %ffice of t$e Cler5 of Court, RC3avao 3el ur, as evidenced y a Certification

from t$e said office appended as Anne 7A; of complainant/s 'anifestation dated %ctoer 18,2!!. $us, t$e claim of complainant t$at respondent falsified or caused it to falsify t$e stamp

mar5ed received dated 'ay 1!, 2!!2 includin* t$e case numer 7819;, finds factual and le*al

ases.

It ears stress t$at a copy of t$e suect civil complaint #as otained y complainant

from t$e respondent $erself #$o tried to impress upon t$e former t$at contrary to $er suspicion,

t$e suect civil complaint #as already filed in court. o#ever, inDuiry made y t$ecomplainant s$o#s ot$er#ise.

Respondent/s contention t$at after one copy of t$e complaint #as already stamped ycourt personnel in preparation for receivin* t$e same and enterin* in t$e court/s doc5et, s$e

caused it to e #it$dra#n after reali)in* t$at t$e same lac5ed certain attac$ments, is ereft of

merit.

In t$e first place, respondent miseraly failed to mention t$ese lac5in* attac$ments t$at

alle*edly caused t$e #it$dra#al of t$e complaint. econdly, and assumin* ar*uendo t$at t$e


3/6

#it$dra#al #as due to lac5in* attac$ments, $o# come t$e same #as not filed in t$e net office

day complete #it$ attac$ments. And lastly, t$e Certification of t$e Cler5 of Court clearly statest$at Civil Case No. 81 is not t$e case of 'ercedes Calleo vda. 3e Ceni)a, et al. vs. C$arlotte

Ceni)a, et al.

$e fact t$at t$e City rosecutor/s %ffice of 3i*os, upon motion for reconsideration of

t$e respondent, dismissed a similar complaint filed y $erein complainant #ill not in any#ayaffect t$e aove captioned administrative complaint.

$e pendency of a criminal action a*ainst t$e respondent, from t$e facts of #$ic$ t$edisciplinary proceedin* is predicated, does not pose preudicial Duestion to t$e resolution of t$e

issues in t$e disarment case. ?Calo vs. 3e*ano, 2! CRA 88B@ is conviction is not necessary

to $old t$e la#yer administratively liale ecause t$e t#o proceedin*s and t$eir oectives aredifferent and it is not sound pulic policy to a#ait t$e final resolution of a sole efore t$e court

act on a complaint a*ainst a la#yer as it may emasculate t$e disciplinary po#er of t$e court. ?In

re &rillantes, B6 CRA 1@ Nor is $is acDuittal, y t$is fact alone, a ar to an administrativecomplaint a*ainst $im. ?iatt vs. Aordo, $il. "!@.

$e ot$er alle*ations in t$e complaint aout i*norance of t$e la# are found to e #it$out

asis.

R(C%''(N3AI%N

E(R(


4/6

RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-200'-7()

Adm. Case No. 6166 'aria (arl &everly C. Ceni)a vs.

Atty. +ivian . Ruia

R(%>+(3 to A3% and AR%+(, as it is $erey A3%(3 and AR%+(3 t$e

Recommendation of t$e &oard of overnors


5/6

$us, for lac5 of preponderant evidence, t$e investi*atin* commissioner/s rulin* t$at respondent #as

*uilty of falsification of pulic document, as adopted y t$e I& &oard of overnors, $as no factual asis tostand on.

o#ever, #e find t$at respondent committed some acts for #$ic$ s$e s$ould e disciplined oradministratively sanctioned.

Ee find not$in* ille*al or repre$ensile in respondent/s act of c$ar*in* an acceptance fee of "2,!!!.!!

#$ic$ amount appears to e reasonale under t$e circumstances. $e impropriety lies in t$e fact t$at s$esu**ested t$at complainant orro# money from 3omin*o Natavio for t$e payment t$ereof. $is act impresses

upon t$e Court t$at respondent #ould do not$in* to t$e cause of complainant/s mot$er-in-la# unless payment

of t$e acceptance fee is made. er duty to render le*al services to $er client #it$ competence and dili*ences$ould not depend on t$e payment of acceptance fee, #$ic$ #as in t$is case promised to e paid upon t$e

arrival of complainant/s mot$er-in-la# in June 2!!2, or arely a mont$ after respondent accepted t$e case.

Respondent/s trans*ression is compounded furt$er #$en s$e severed t$e la#yer-client relations$ip due

to over#$elmin* #or5load demanded y $er ne# employer Na5ayama roup of Companies, #$ic$ constrained

$er to return t$e money received as #ell as t$e records of t$e case, t$erey leavin* $er client #it$ norepresentation. tandin* alone, $eavy #or5load is not sufficient reason for t$e #it$dra#al of $er services.

'oreover, respondent failed to maintain an open line of communication #it$ $er client re*ardin* t$e

status of t$eir complaint.

Clearly, respondent violated t$e >a#yer/s %at$ #$ic$ imposes upon every memer of t$e ar t$e duty to

delay no man for money or malice, Rules 1.!" and 1.!8 of Canon 1, and Canon 22 of t$e Code ofProfessional Responsibility, t$us:

CAN%N 1 - A >AE(R A>> (R+( I C>I(N EI

C%'((NC( AN3 3I>I(NC(.

Rule 1.!" - A la#yer s$all not ne*lect a le*al matter entrusted to $im and $is

ne*li*ence in connection t$ere#it$ s$all render $im liale.

Rule 1.!8 - A la#yer s$all 5eep t$e client informed of t$e status of $is case and s$all

respond #it$in a reasonale time to t$e client/s reDuest for information.

CAN%N 22 - A >AE(R A>> EI3RAE I (R+IC( %N>


6/6

is SUSEN&E&from t$e practice of la# for si ?6@ mont$s effective immediately, #it$ a #arnin* t$at similar

infractions in t$e future #ill e dealt #it$ more severely.

>et all courts, t$rou*$ t$e %ffice of t$e Court Administrator, as #ell as t$e Inte*rated &ar of

t$e $ilippines and t$e %ffice of t$e &ar Confidant, e notified of t$is 3ecision, and e it duly recorded in t$epersonal file of respondent Atty. +ivian . Ruia.

13-ceniza vs rubia

Documents