A.C. No.

6166 October 2, 2009

MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. CENIZA, complainant vs. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA, respondent
YNARESSANTIAGO, J.:


In a verified complaint
[1]
dated July 25, 2003 filed wit te !ffice of te "ar #onfidant, $aria %arl "everly #.
#eni&a car'ed (tty. )ivian *. +u,ia wit 'rave misconduct, 'ross i'norance of te law and falsification of pu,lic
documents.

-e facts of te case are as follows:

!n $ay 3, 2002, complainant sou't te le'al services of te respondent in re'ard to te sare of er moter.
in.law in te estate of er us,and #arlos #eni&a. (s se ad no money to pay for attorney/s fees since er moter.
in.law would arrive from te 0nited 1tates only in June 2002, respondent made er si'n a promissory note for
232,000.00, wic amount was lent ,y 3omin'o 4atavio. (fter er moter.in.law arrived and paid te loan,
respondent furnised tem a copy of te complaint for partition and recovery of ownersip5possession representin'
le'itime ,ut wit no doc6et num,er on it. -ey 6ept on followin' up te pro'ress of te complaint. 7owever, tree
monts lapsed ,efore respondent informed tem tat it was already filed in court. It was ten tat tey received a
copy of te complaint wit 8#ivil #ase 4o. 91:;< and a ru,,er stamped 8+%#%I)%3< tereon. 7owever, wen
complainant verified te status of te case wit te #ler6 of #ourt of te +e'ional -rial #ourt of 3avao del 1ur, se
was informed tat no case wit said title and doc6et num,er was filed.
[2]


=urter, complainant alle'ed tat respondent was 'uilty of 'ross i'norance of te law for intendin' to file te
complaint in 3avao del 1ur wen te properties to ,e recovered were located in >oronadal, 1out #ota,ato and
$alun'on, 1aran'ani 2rovince, in violation of te rule on venue tat real actions sall ,e filed in te place were te
property is situated. #omplainant also alle'ed tat respondent for'ed te si'nature of er us,and, #arlito #.
#eni&a, in te (ffidavit of ?oss attaced to a petition for te issuance of a new owner/s duplicate certificate of title
filed wit te +e'ional -rial #ourt @+-#A of 3i'os #ity, "ranc 20, in $isc. #ase 4o. 119.2202.
[3]

In er comment, respondent assailed te personality of te complainant to institute te administrative complaint
for dis,arment as se was not a party to te action for partition and recovery of ownersip5possession. (s suc, er
alle'ations in te administrative complaint were all earsay, self.servin' and unsu,stantiated. =urter, te car'e of
for'ery of te (ffidavit of ?oss was ,elied ,y te $arc 3, 2003 decision of te trial court, werein #arlito #. #eni&a
affirmed is statements in te said affidavit wen e was called to testify.
[9]

!n =e,ruary 2, 2009, te #ourt resolved to refer te case to te Inte'rated "ar of te 2ilippines @I"2A for
investi'ation, report and recommendation.

!n (pril 2:, 2009, respondent filed a 1upplemental #omment eBplainin' te ru,,er stamped 8+%#%I)%3< on
te complaint. (ccordin' to er, wen er staff Jan >irt ?ester 1oledad was at te +-# !ffice of te #ler6 of #ourt,
se called im trou' cellular pone and directed im to stop te filin' of te complaint as te same lac6ed certain
attacments. 7owever, one copy tereof was already stamped 8+%#%I)%3< ,y te receivin' court personnel, wo
also assi'ned a doc6et num,er. 1e 6ept te copies of te complaint, includin' te one wit te stamp, to ,e filed
later wen te attacments are complete.

$eanwile, on 4ovem,er C, 2005, respondent filed a $anifestation wit 0r'ent $otion prayin' tat te
administrative complaint ,e li6ewise dismissed in view of te dismissal of te criminal case due to complainant/s
apparent lac6 of interest to prosecute.

!n January 1:, 200C, te I"2 Investi'atin' #ommissioner recommended tat respondent ,e found 'uilty of
falsification of pu,lic document and ,e meted te penalty of suspension from te practice of law for a period of tree
years. -e report reads in part, as follows:

( proceedin' for suspension or dis,arment is not in any sense a civil action, were te
complainant is a plaintiff and te respondent lawyer is a defendant. It involved no private
interest. -e complainant or person wo called te attention of te court to te attorney/s
misconduct is in no sense a party and as 'enerally no interest in its outcome eBcept as all 'ood
citi&ens may ave in te proper administration of Dustice. It affords no redress for private 'rievance.
@-eDan v. #usi, 5C 1#+( 159A

2rescindin' from te aforeEuoted rulin', it is terefore irrelevant and immaterial if erein
complainant is not a party to te su,Dect civil complaint prepared ,y te respondent. ( case of
suspension or dis,arment may proceed re'ardless of interest or lac6 of interest of te
complainant. Fat matters is weter on te ,asis of te facts ,orne out ,y te record, te car'e
as ,een proven.

!n te payment of te acceptance fee in te amount of 232,000.00, respondent/s
contention tat se acted as 'uarantor of #arlos #eni&a, complainant/s us,and, wen e
,orrowed money from a money lender, 3omin'o 4atavio, te amount representin' te acceptance,
does not inspire ,elief. -e promissory note dated $ay 3, 2002, appended as (nneB 8(< of te
complaint.affidavit eloEuently sows tat consistent wit te complainant/s alle'ation, se was
made to ,orrow said amount to ,e paid as respondent/s acceptance fee. It ,ears stress tat te
date of te promissory note is te same date wen respondent/s services were en'a'ed leadin' to
te preparation of te su,Dect civil complaint. #omplainant/s alle'ation is furter enanced ,y te
fact tat suc promissory note was even notari&ed ,y te respondent.

!n te alle'ed filin' of te su,Dect civil complaint, it is undisputed tat te same was not
filed ,efore te !ffice of te #ler6 of #ourt, +-# 3avao 3el 1ur, as evidenced ,y a #ertification
from te said office appended as (nneB 8(< of complainant/s $anifestation dated !cto,er 19,
2005. -us, te claim of complainant tat respondent falsified or caused it to falsify te stamp
mar6ed received dated $ay 10, 2002 includin' te case num,er 891:;<, finds factual and le'al
,ases.

It ,ears stress tat a copy of te su,Dect civil complaint was o,tained ,y complainant from
te respondent erself wo tried to impress upon te former tat contrary to er suspicion, te
su,Dect civil complaint was already filed in court. 7owever, inEuiry made ,y te complainant sows
oterwise.

+espondent/s contention tat after one copy of te complaint was already stamped ,y court
personnel in preparation for receivin' te same and enterin' in te court/s doc6et, se caused it to
,e witdrawn after reali&in' tat te same lac6ed certain attacments, is ,ereft of merit.

In te first place, respondent misera,ly failed to mention tese lac6in' attacments tat
alle'edly caused te witdrawal of te complaint. 1econdly, and assumin' ar'uendo tat te
witdrawal was due to lac6in' attacments, ow come te same was not filed in te neBt office day
complete wit attacments. (nd lastly, te #ertification of te #ler6 of #ourt clearly states tat #ivil
#ase 4o. 91;; is not te case of $ercedes #alleDo vda. 3e #eni&a, et al. vs. #arlotte #eni&a, et
al.

B B B B

-e fact tat te #ity 2rosecutor/s !ffice of 3i'os, upon motion for reconsideration of te
respondent, dismissed a similar complaint filed ,y erein complainant will not in anyway affect te
a,ove captioned administrative complaint.

-e pendency of a criminal action a'ainst te respondent, from te facts of wic te
disciplinary proceedin' is predicated, does not pose preDudicial Euestion to te resolution of te
issues in te dis,arment case. @#alo vs. 3e'ano, 20 1#+( 99CA 7is conviction is not necessary
to old te lawyer administratively lia,le ,ecause te two proceedin's and teir o,Dectives are
different and it is not sound pu,lic policy to await te final resolution of a criminal case ,efore te
court act on a complaint a'ainst a lawyer as it may emasculate te disciplinary power of te
court. @In re "rillantes, CG 1#+( 1A 4or is is acEuittal, ,y tis fact alone, a ,ar to an
administrative complaint a'ainst im. @2iatt vs. (,ordo, 5; 2il. 350A.

-e oter alle'ations in te complaint a,out i'norance of te law are found to ,e witout
,asis.

+%#!$$%43(-I!4

F7%+%=!+%, it is most respectfully recommended tat erein respondent (tty. )ivian #.
+u,ia, ,e found 'uilty of te car'e of falsification of pu,lic document and ,e meted te penalty of
suspension from te practice of law for a period of tree @3A years.

!n $ay 31, 200C, te "oard of *overnors of te I"2 issued a +esolution adoptin' te Investi'atin'
#ommissioner/s recommendation wit modification, as follows:

RESOLUTION NO. !VII200"2#"
(dm. #ase 4o. G1GG
$aria %arl "everly #. #eni&a vs.
(tty. )ivian *. +u,ia


+%1!?)%3 to (3!2- and (22+!)%, as it is ere,y (3!2-%3 and (22+!)%3, $%t&
'o(%)%c*t%o+, te +eport and +ecommendation of te Investi'atin' #ommissioner of te a,ove.
entitled case, erein made part of tis +esolution as (nneB 8(<H and findin' te recommendation
fully supported ,y te evidence on record and te applica,le laws and rules, and considerin'
+espondent/s falsification of pu,lic document, (tty. )ivian *. +u,ia is ere,y ,ISBARRE,.

7owever, in its 3ecem,er 11, 200; +esolution, te "oard of *overnors reconsidered its $ay 31, 200C
+esolution ,y reducin' te recommended penalty of dis,arment to five years suspension from te practice of law,
tus:

RESOLUTION NO. !VIII200-"1.
(dm. #ase 4o. G1GG
$aria %arl "everly #. #eni&a vs.
(tty. )ivian *. +u,ia

+%1!?)%3 to (3!2- and (22+!)%, as it is ere,y (3!2-%3 and (22+!)%3 te
+ecommendation of te "oard of *overnors =irst 3ivision of te a,ove.entitled case, erein made
part of tis +esolution as (nneB 8(<H and, findin' te recommendation fully supported ,y te
evidence on record and te applica,le laws and rules, te $otion for +econsideration is
ere,y ,ENIE, $%t& 'o(%)%c*t%o+, tat +esolution +%1!?0-I!4 4!. I)II.200C.23C of te
"oard of *overnors dated 31 $ay 200C recommendin' te 3is,arment of (tty. )ivian *. +u,ia is
reduced to =ive @5A years 1uspension from te practice of law.

!n (pril 20, 200:, te I"2 forwarded te instant case to tis #ourt as provided under +ule 13:.", 1ection
12@,A of te +ules of #ourt.

#omplainant see6s te dis,arment of respondent from te practice of law for 'ross misconduct, i'norance of
te law and for falsification of pu,lic document. In dis,arment proceedin's, te ,urden of proof rests upon te
complainant, and for te court to eBercise its disciplinary powers, te case a'ainst te respondent must ,e
esta,lised ,y clear, convincin' and satisfactory proof. #onsiderin' te serious conseEuence of te dis,arment or
suspension of a mem,er of te "ar, tis #ourt as consistently eld tat clear preponderant evidence is necessary to
Dustify te imposition of te administrative penalty.
[5]

-e sole issue in tis case is weter or not tere is preponderant evidence to warrant te imposition of
administrative sanction a'ainst te respondent.

In accusin' respondent of falsification of pu,lic document, complainant alle'ed tat respondent misrepresented
to er tat te complaint was already filed in court, wen in fact, upon verification wit te +-# #ler6 of #ourt, it was
not. 1uc misrepresentation is sown ,y te copy of te complaint wit a stamped 8+%#%I)%3< and doc6et num,er
tereon. (part from said alle'ations, complainant as not proferred any proof tendin' to sow tat respondent
deli,erately falsified a pu,lic document.

( perusal of te records sows tat complainant/s evidence consists solely of er (ffidavit.#omplaint and
te anneBes attaced terewit. 1e did not appear in all te mandatory conferences set ,y te investi'atin'
commissioner in order to 'ive respondent te cance to test te veracity of er assertions. It is one tin' to alle'e
'ross misconduct, i'norance of te law or falsification of pu,lic document and anoter to demonstrate ,y evidence
te specific acts constitutin' te same.

Indeed, complainant as no way of 6nowin' te surroundin' circumstances ,eind te filin' of te complaint
,y respondent/s staff ,ecause se was not present wen te same was filed wit te trial court. #omplainant failed to
disprove ,y preponderant evidence respondent/s claim tat te case was not filed ,ut was in fact witdrawn after it
was stamped wit 8+%#%I)%3< and assi'ned wit a doc6et num,er. Fe find tis eBplanation satisfactory and
plausi,le considerin' tat te stamp did not ,ear te si'nature of te receivin' court personnel, wic is normally
done wen pleadin's are received ,y te court.

=urter, te certification of te +-# #ler6 of #ourt tat te complaint was not filed and tat 8#I)I? #(1% 4!.
91:;< pertained to anoter case, did not diminis te trutfulness of respondent/s claim, ,ut even tended to ,olster
it. 4ecessarily, as te complaint was not filed, doc6et num,er 891:;< indicated in te copy of te complaint was
assi'ned to anoter case tereafter filed in court.

-us, for lac6 of preponderant evidence, te investi'atin' commissioner/s rulin' tat respondent was 'uilty of
falsification of pu,lic document, as adopted ,y te I"2"oard of *overnors, as no factual ,asis to stand on.

7owever, we find tat respondent committed some acts for wic se sould ,e disciplined or administratively
sanctioned.

Fe find notin' ille'al or repreensi,le in respondent/s act of car'in' an acceptance fee of 232,000.00,
wic amount appears to ,e reasona,le under te circumstances. -e impropriety lies in te fact tat se su''ested
tat complainant ,orrow money from 3omin'o 4atavio for te payment tereof. -is act impresses upon te #ourt
tat respondent would do notin' to te cause of complainant/s moter.in.law unless payment of te acceptance fee
is made. 7er duty to render le'al services to er client wit competence and dili'ence sould not depend on te
payment of acceptance fee, wic was in tis case promised to ,e paid upon te arrival of complainant/s moter.in.
law in June 2002, or ,arely a mont after respondent accepted te case.

+espondent/s trans'ression is compounded furter wen se severed te lawyer.client relationsip due to
overwelmin' wor6load demanded ,y er new employer 4a6ayama *roup of #ompanies, wic constrained er to
return te money received as well as te records of te case, tere,y leavin' er client wit no representation.
1tandin' alone, eavy wor6load is not sufficient reason for te witdrawal of er services.

$oreover, respondent failed to maintain an open line of communication wit er client re'ardin' te status
of teir complaint.

#learly, respondent violated te ?awyer/s !at wic imposes upon every mem,er of te ,ar te duty to
delay no man for money or malice, +ules 1;.03 and 1;.09 of #anon 1;, and #anon 22 of te Code of Professional
Responsibility, tus:

#(4!4 1; . ( ?(FJ%+ 17(?? 1%+)% 7I1 #?I%4- FI-7
#!$2%-%4#% (43 3I?I*%4#%.

B B B B

+ule 1;.03 . ( lawyer sall not ne'lect a le'al matter entrusted to im and is ne'li'ence
in connection terewit sall render im lia,le.

+ule 1;.09 . ( lawyer sall 6eep te client informed of te status of is case and sall
respond witin a reasona,le time to te client/s reEuest for information.

#(4!4 22 . ( ?(FJ%+ 17(?? FI-73+(F 7I1 1%+)I#%1 !4?J =!+ *!!3
#(01% (43 02!4 4!-I#% (22+!2+I(-% I4 -7% #I+#0$1-(4#%1.

Fen a lawyer accepts to andle a case, weter for a fee or gratis et amore, e underta6es to 'ive is
utmost attention, s6ill and competence to it, re'ardless of its si'nificance. -us, is client, weter ric or poor, as
te ri't to eBpect tat e will discar'e is duties dili'ently and eBert is ,est efforts, learnin' and a,ility to
prosecute or defend is @client/sA cause wit reasona,le dispatc. =ailure to fulfill is duties will su,Dect im to 'rave
administrative lia,ility as a mem,er of te "ar. =or te overridin' need to maintain te fait and confidence of te
people in te le'al profession demands tat an errin' lawyer sould ,e sanctioned.
[G]


/0ERE1ORE, in view of te fore'oin', respondent (tty. )ivian *. +u,ia is found GUILTY of violation of +ule
1;.03 and #anon 22 of te #ode of 2rofessional +esponsi,ility. (ccordin'ly, se is SUS2EN,E, from te practice
of law for siB @GA monts effective immediately, wit a warnin' tat similar infractions in te future will ,e dealt wit
more severely.

?et all courts, trou' te !ffice of te #ourt (dministrator, as well as te Inte'rated "ar of te 2ilippines and
te !ffice of te "ar #onfidant, ,e notified of tis 3ecision, and ,e it duly recorded in te personal file of respondent
(tty. )ivian *. +u,ia.

SO OR,ERE,.