5/26/2017 A.C.No.

8620

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

JESSIER.DELEON, A.C.No.8620
Complainant,
Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
BRION,
versus BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENO,JJ.

ATTY.EDUARDOG. Promulgated:
CASTELO,
Respondent. January12,2011
xx

DECISION


BERSAMIN,J.:

This administrative case, which Jessie R. De Leon initiated on April 29, 2010, concerns
respondentattorneysallegeddishonestyandfalsificationcommittedinthepleadingshefiledin
behalfofthedefendantsinthecivilactioninwhichDeLeonintervened.

Antecedents

On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the purpose of correcting the
transfer certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land located in Malabon City then
registered in the names of defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu due to their
encroachingonapubliccallejonandonaportionoftheMalabonNavotasRivershorelinetothe
extent, respectively, of an area of 45 square meters and of about 600 square meters. The suit,
entitledRepublicofthePhilippines,representedbytheRegionalExecutiveDirector,Department
ofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesv.SpousesLimHioandDoloresChu,GorgoniaFlores,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 1/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

andtheRegistrarofDeedsofMalabonCity, was docketed as Civil Case No. 4674MN of the

[1]
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch74,inMalabonCity.

DeLeon,havingjoinedCivilCaseNo.4674MNasavoluntaryintervenortwoyearslater
(April21,2008),nowaccusestherespondent,thecounselofrecordofthedefendantsinCivil
Case No. 4674MN, with the serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification
warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney. The respondents sin was allegedly
committedbyhisfilingfordefendantsSpousesLimHioandDoloresChuofvariouspleadings
(thatis,answerwithcounterclaimandcrossclaiminrelationtothemaincomplaintandanswer
tothecomplaintininterventionwithcounterclaimandcrossclaim)despitesaidspousesbeing
[2]
alreadydeceasedatthetimeoffiling.

DeLeonaversthattherespondentcommitteddishonestyandfalsificationasfollows:

xxx in causing it (to) appear that persons (spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu) have
participatedinanactorproceeding(themakingandfilingoftheAnswers)whentheydidnotin
factsoparticipateinfact,theycouldnothavesoparticipatedbecausetheywerealreadydeadas
ofthattime,whichispunishableunderArticle172,inrelationtoArticle171,paragraph2,ofthe
RevisedPenalCode.

Respondent also committed the crime of Use of Falsified Documents, by submitting the
saidfalsifiedAnswersinthejudicialproceedings,CivilCaseNo.4674MN

Respondentalsomadeamockeryoftheaforesaidjudicialproceedingsbyrepresentingdead
personsthereinwho,hefalselymadetoappear,ascontestingthecomplaints,countersuingand
crosssuingtheadverseparties.

12.That,asaconsequenceoftheabovecriminalacts,complainantrespectfullysubmitsthat
respondentlikewiseviolated:


(a)HisLawyersOath:
xxx
[3]
(b)TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:
xxx

On June 23, 2010, the Court directed the respondent to comment on De Leons
[4]
administrativecomplaint.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 2/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

[5]
In due course, or on August 2, 2010, the respondent rendered the following
explanationsinhiscomment,towit:

1. The persons who had engaged him as attorney to represent the Lim family in
Civil Case No. 4674MN were William and Leonardo Lim, the children of
SpousesLimHioandDoloresChu

2.Uponhis(Atty.Castelo)initialqueriesrelevanttothematerialallegationsofthe
Governments complaint in Civil Case No. 4674MN, William Lim, the
representativeoftheLimFamily,informedhim:

a.ThattheLimfamilyhadacquiredthepropertiesfromGeorginaFlores

b. That William and Leonardo Lim were already actively managing the
familybusiness,andnowcoownedthepropertiesbyvirtueofthedeedof
absolute sale their parents, Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, had
executedintheirfavorand

c. That because of the execution of the deed of absolute sale, William and
LeonardoLimhadsincehonestlyassumedthattheirparentshadalready
causedthetransferoftheTCTstotheirnames.

3.ConsideringthatWilliamandLeonardoLimthemselvesweretheoneswhohad
engaged his services, he (Atty. Castelo) consequently truthfully stated in the
motionseekinganextensiontofileresponsivepleadingdatedFebruary3,2006
thefactthatitwasthefamilyofthedefendantsthathadengagedhim,andthat
hehadthenadvisedthechildrenofthedefendantstoseektheassistanceaswell
ofalicensedgeodeticsurveyorandengineer

4.He(Atty.Castelo)preparedtheinitialpleadingsbasedonhishonestbeliefthat
Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were then still living. Had he known that
theywerealreadydeceased,hewouldhavemostwelcomedtheinformationand
would have moved to substitute Leonardo and William Lim as defendants for
thatreason

5. He (Atty. Castelo) had no intention to commit either a falsehood or a
falsification,forheinfactsubmittedthedeathcertificatesofSpousesLimHio
andDoloresChuinordertoapprisethetrialcourtofthatfactand

6. The Office of the Prosecutor for Malabon City even dismissed the criminal
complaint for falsification brought against him (Atty. Castelo) through the
resolution dated February 11, 2010. The same office denied the complainants
motionforreconsiderationonMay17,2010.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 3/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

[6]
OnSeptember3,2010,thecomplainantsubmittedareply, wherebyheassertedthatthe
respondents claim in his comment that he had represented the Lim family was a deception,
because the subject of the complaint against the respondent was his filing of the answers in
behalfofSpousesLimHioandDoloresChudespitetheirbeingalreadydeceasedatthetimeof
the filing. The complainant regarded as baseless the justifications of the Office of the City
ProsecutorforMalabonCityindismissingthecriminalcomplaintagainsttherespondentandin
denyinghismotionforreconsideration.

TheCourtusuallyfirstrefersadministrativecomplaintsagainstmembersofthePhilippine
Bar to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and appropriate
recommendations.Forthepresentcase,however,weforegothepriorreferralofthecomplaintto
theIBP,inviewofthefactsbeinguncomplicatedandbasedonthepleadingsinCivilCaseNo.
4674MN.Thus,wedecidethecomplaintonitsmerits.
Ruling

Wefindthattherespondent,asattorney,didnotcommitanyfalsehoodorfalsificationin
his pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently frivolous
complaint.

I
AttorneysObligationtotellthetruth

All attorneys in the Philippines, including the respondent, have sworn to the vows
[7]
embodiedinfollowingLawyersOath, viz:

I,___________________,dosolemnlyswearthatIwillmaintainallegiancetotheRepublic
ofthePhilippinesIwillsupportitsConstitutionandobeythelawsaswellasthelegalordersof
thedulyconstitutedauthoritiesthereinIwilldonofalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyin
courtIwillnotwittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuit,nor
give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myselfasalawyeraccordingtothebestofmyknowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityas
welltothecourtsastomyclientsandIimposeuponmyselfthisvoluntaryobligationwithout
anymentalreservationorpurposeofevasion.SohelpmeGod.


[8]
TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityechoestheLawyersOath,providing:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 4/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OFTHELANDANDPROMOTERESPECTFORLAWANDLEGALPROCESSES.

Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.

CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.

Rule10.01Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyinCourt
norshallhemislead,orallowtheCourttobemisledbyanyartifice.

Theforegoingordainethicalnormsthatbindallattorneys,asofficersoftheCourt,toact
with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. All attorneys are thereby
enjoinedtoobeythelawsoftheland,torefrainfromdoinganyfalsehoodinoroutofcourtor
fromconsentingtothedoingofanyincourt,andtoconductthemselvesaccordingtothebestof
their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients.
BeingalsoservantsoftheLaw,attorneysareexpectedtoobserveandmaintaintheruleoflaw
[9]
andtomakethemselvesexemplarsworthyofemulationbyothers. Theleasttheycandoin
that regard is to refrain from engaging in any form or manner of unlawful conduct (which
broadlyincludesanyactoromissioncontrarytolaw,butdoesnotnecessarilyimplytheelement
[10]
ofcriminalityevenifitisbroadenoughtoincludesuchelement).

Toallattorneys,truthfulnessandhonestyhavethehighestvalue,for,astheCourthassaid
[11]
inYoungv.Batuegas:

Alawyermustbeadiscipleoftruth.HesworeuponhisadmissiontotheBarthathewilldo
nofalsehoodnorconsenttothedoingofanyincourtandheshallconducthimselfasalawyer
accordingtothebestofhisknowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityaswelltothecourts
as to his clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to
correctlyinformthecourtuponthelawandthefactsofthecaseandtoaiditindoingjusticeand
arrivingatcorrectconclusion.Thecourts,ontheotherhand,areentitledtoexpectonlycomplete
honestyfromlawyersappearingandpleadingbeforethem.Whilealawyerhasthesolemndutyto
defendhisclientsrightsandisexpectedtodisplaytheutmostzealindefenseofhisclientscause,
hisconductmustneverbeattheexpenseoftruth.


Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not only the presumption of
regularityinthedischargeoftheirduties,butalsotheimmunityfromliabilitytoothersforas
longastheperformanceoftheirobligationstotheirclientsdoesnotdepartfromtheircharacter
asservantsoftheLawandasofficersoftheCourt.In particular, the statements they make in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 5/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

behalf of their clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are
absolutelyprivilegedregardlessoftheirdefamatorytenor.Suchcloakofprivilegeisnecessary
and essential in ensuring the unhindered service to their clients causes and in protecting the
clientsconfidences.Withthecloakofprivilege,theycanfreelyandcourageouslyspeakfortheir
clients,verballyorinwriting,inthecourseofjudicialandquasijudicialproceedings,without
[12]
runningtheriskofincurringcriminalprosecutionoractionsfordamages.

Nonetheless, even if they enjoy a number of privileges by reason of their office and in
recognition of the vital role they play in the administration of justice, attorneys hold the
privilegeandrighttopracticelawbeforejudicial,quasijudicial,oradministrativetribunalsor
[13]
officesonlyduringgoodbehavior.

II
RespondentdidnotviolatetheLawyersOath
andtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility

OnApril17,2006,therespondentfiledananswerwithcounterclaimandcrossclaimin
behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the persons whom the Government as plaintiff
[14]
namedasdefendantsinCivilCaseNo.4674MN. Heallegedthereinthat:

2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are ADMITTED. Moreover, it is hereby
madeknownthatdefendantsspousesLimHioandDoloresChuhadalreadysoldthetwo
(2) parcels of land, together with the building and improvements thereon, covered by
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.(148805)139876issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofRizal,to
Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde,
Binondo, Manila. Hence, Leonardo Lim and William Lim are their successorsininterest
andarethepresentlawfulownersthereof.

In order to properly and fully protect their rights, ownership and interests, Leonardo C.
Lim and William C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendantsspouses Lim Hio and
DoloresChuassubstitute/representativepartiesinthisaction.Inthismanner,acomplete
and expeditious resolution of the issues raised in this case can be reached without undue
delay.AphotocopyoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaleoverthesubjectproperty,executedbyherein
defendantsspousesLimHioandDoloresChuinfavorofsaidLeonardoC.LimandWilliamC.
Lim,isheretoattachedasAnnex1hereof.
xxx
21.Thereisimproperjoinderofpartiesinthecomplaint.Consequently,answeringdefendantsare
thusundulycompelledtolitigateinasuitregardingmattersandfactsastowhichtheyhaveno
knowledgeofnoranyinvolvementorparticipationin.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 6/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

22.Plaintiffisbarredbytheprincipleofestoppelinbringingthissuit,asitwastheonewho,by
itsgovernmentalauthority,issuedthetitlestothesubjectproperty.
Thisactionisbarredbytheprinciplesofprescriptionandlachesforplaintiffsunreasonable
delay in brining this suit, particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein answering
defendantsacquiredthesubjectpropertyingoodfaithandforvalue.Iftrulyplaintiffhasaclear
andvalidcauseofactiononthesubjectproperty,itshouldnothavewaitedthirty(30)yearsto
bringsuit.

Twoyearslater,oronApril21,2008,DeLeonfiledhiscomplaintininterventioninCivil
[15]
CaseNo.4674MN. Heexpresslynamedthereinasdefendantsvisvishisinterventionnot
only the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the original defendants, but also their sons
LeonardoLim,marriedtoSallyKhoo,andWilliamLim,marriedtoSallyLee,thesamepersons
whomtherespondenthadalreadyallegedintheanswer,supra,tobethetransfereesandcurrent
[16]
ownersoftheparcelsofland.

ThefollowingportionsofDeLeonscomplaintininterventioninCivilCaseNo.4674MN
arerelevant,viz:



2.DefendantspousesLimHioandDoloresChu,areFilipinocitizenswithaddressesat504
PlazadelConde,Manilaandat46C.ArellanoSt.,SanAgustin,MalabonCity,wherethey
maybeservedwithsummonsandothercourtprocesses

3.Defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim
and Sally Lee are all of legal age and with postal address at Rms. 501502 Dolores Bldg.,
Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila, alleged purchasers of the property in question from
defendantspousesLimHioandDoloresChu

4.DefendantsRegistrarofDeedsofMalabonCityholdsofficeinMalabonCity,wherehemay
beservedwithsummonsandothercourtprocesses.Heischargedwiththeduty,amongothers,of
registeringdecreesofLandRegistrationinMalabonCityundertheLandRegistrationAct
xxx
7. That intervenor Jessie de Leon, is the owner of a parcel of land located in Malabon City
describedinTCTno.M15183oftheRegisterofDeedsofMalabonCity,photocopyofwhichis
attached to this Complaint as Annex G, and copy of the location plan of the aforementioned
propertyisattachedtothiscomplaintasAnnexHandismadeanintegralparthereof

8.That there are now more or less at least 40 squatters on intervenors property, most of them
employeesofdefendantspousesLimHioandDoloresChuanddefendantspousesLeonardoLim
and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee who had gained access to
intervenors property and built their houses without benefit of any building permits from the
governmentwhohadmadetheiraccesstointervenorspropertythruatwopanelmetalgatemore
orless10meterswideandwithanarmedguardbythegateandwithpermissionfromdefendant
spousesLimHioandDoloresChuand/oranddefendantspousesLeonardoLimandSallyKhoo
and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee illegally entered intervenors property thru a
wooden ladder to go over a 12 foot wall now separating intervenors property from the former
esquinita which is now part of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chus and defendant
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 7/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoos and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lees
propertyandthisillegallyallowedhisemployeesaswellastheirrelativesandfriendsthereofto
illegallyenterintervenorspropertythroughtheladdersdefendantspousesLimHioandDolores
Chu installed in their wall and also allowed said employees and relatives as well as friends to
buildhousesandshackswithoutthebenefitofanybuildingpermitaswellaspermittooccupy
saidillegalbuildings

9.ThattheenlargementofthepropertiesofspousesLimHioandDoloresChuhadresultedinthe
closure of street lot no. 3 as described inTCT no. 143828, spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
having titled the street lot no. 3 and placed a wall at its opening on C. Arellano street, thus
closing any exit or egress or entrance to intervenors property as could be seen from Annex H
hereof and thus preventing intervenor from entering into his property resulted in preventing
intervenorfromfullyenjoyingallthebeneficialbenefitsfromhisproperty


10. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and later on defendant spouses
LeonardoLimandSallyKhooanddefendantspousesWilliamLimandSallyLeearethe
onlypeoplewhocouldgivepermissiontoallowthirdpartiestoenterintervenorsproperty
and their control over intervenors property is enforced through his armed guard thus
exercisingillegalbeneficialrightsoverintervenorspropertyatintervenorslossandexpense,
thus depriving intervenor of legitimate income from rents as well as legitimate access to
intervenors property and the worst is preventing the Filipino people from enjoying the
MalabonNavotasRiverandenjoyingtherightofaccesstothenaturalfruitsandproducts
oftheMalabonNavotasRiverandinsteaditisdefendantspousesLimHioandDoloresChu
anddefendantspousesLeonardoLimandSallyKhooanddefendantspousesWilliamLim
andSallyLeeusingthepublicpropertyexclusivelytoenrichtheirpockets
xxx
13.ThatdefendantspousesLimHioandDoloresChuanddefendantspousesLeonardoLim
and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee were confederating,
working and helping one another in their actions to inhibit intervenor Jessie de Leon to
gainaccessandbeneficialbenefitfromhisproperty

On July 10, 2008, the respondent, representing all the defendants named in De Leons
complaint in intervention, responded in an answer to the complaint in intervention with
[17]
counterclaimandcrossclaim, statingthatspousesLimHioandDoloresChuxxxarenow
bothdeceased,towit:

xxx
2. The allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Complaint are ADMITTED, with the
qualificationthatdefendantsspousesLeonardoLimandSallyKhooLim,WilliamLimand
Sally Lee Lim are the registered and lawful owners of the subject property covered by
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.M35929,issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsforMalabonCity,
havinglongagoacquiredthesamefromthedefendantsspousesLimHioandDoloresChu,
whoarenowbothdeceased.Copy of the TCT No. M35929 is attached hereto as Annexes 1
and 1A. The same title has already been previously submitted to this Honorable Court on
December13,2006.
xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 8/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

The respondent subsequently submitted to the RTC a socalled clarification and

[18]
submission, inwhichheagainadvertedtothedeathsofSpousesLimHioandDoloresChu,
asfollows:

1.OnMarch19,2009,hereinmovantsdefendantsLimfiledbeforethisHonorableCourta
MotionforSubstitutionofDefendantsinthePrincipalComplaintoftheplaintiffRepublicofthe
Philippines,representedbytheDENR

2.TheMotionforSubstitutionisgroundedonthefactthatthetwo(2)parcelsofland,
withtheimprovementsthereon,whicharethesubjectmatteroftheinstantcase,hadlong
beensoldandtransferredbytheprincipaldefendantsspousesLimHioandDoloresChuto
hereincomplaintininterventiondefendantsLeonardoC.LimandWilliamC.Lim,byway
ofaDeedofAbsoluteSale,acopyofwhichisattachedtosaidMotionasAnnex1thereof.

3.Quite plainly, the original principal defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, having
soldandconveyedthesubjectproperty,havetotallylostanytitle,claimorlegalintereston
the property. It is on this factual ground that this Motion for Substitution is based and
certainly not on the wrong position of Intervenor de Leon that the same is based on the
deathofdefendantsLimHioandDoloresChu.

4.Undertheforegoingcircumstancesandfacts,thedemiseofdefendantsLimHioand
Dolores Chu no longer has any significant relevance to the instant Motion. To, however,
showthefactoftheirdeath,photocopyoftheirrespectivedeathcertificatesareattachedhereto
asAnnexes1and2hereof.

5.The Motion for substitution of Defendants in the Principal Complaint dated March 18,
2009showsindetailwhythereistheclear,legalandimperativeneedtonowsubstituteherein
movantsdefendants Lim for defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in the said principal
complaint.

6. Simply put, movantsdefendants Lim have become the indispensable defendants in the
principalcomplaintofplaintiffDENR,beingnowtheregisteredandlawfulownersofthesubject
propertyandtherealpartiesininterestinthiscase.Withoutthem,nofinaldeterminationcanbe
hadinthePrincipalcomplaint.

7. Significantly, the property of intervenor Jessie de Leon, which is the subject of his
complaintinintervention, is identically, if not similarly, situated as that of herein movants
defendants Lim, and likewise, may as well be a proper subject of the Principal Complaint of
plaintiffDENR.

8.Even the plaintiff DENR, itself, concedes the fact that herein movantsdefendants Lim
shouldbesubstitutedasdefendantsintheprincipalcomplaintascontainedintheirManifestation
datedJune3,2009,whichhasbeenfiledinthiscase.

WHEREFORE,hereinmovantsdefendantsLimmostrespectfullysubmittheirMotionfor
substitutionofDefendantsinthePrincipalComplaintandpraythatthesamebegranted.
xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 9/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility in making the averments in the aforequoted pleadings of the
defendants?

AplainreadingindicatesthattherespondentdidnotmisrepresentthatSpousesLimHio
andDoloresChuwerestillliving.Onthecontrary,therespondentdirectlystatedintheanswer
to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and crossclaim, supra, and in the
clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already
deceased.

Evengranting,forthesakeofargument,thatanyoftherespondentspleadingsmighthave
created any impression that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living, we still
cannotholdtherespondentguiltyofanydishonestyorfalsification.Forone,therespondentwas
acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed the answer with
counterclaim and crossclaim on April 17, 2006. As such, his pleadings were privileged and
would not occasion any action against him as an attorney. Secondly, having made clear at the
startthattheSpousesLimHioandDoloresChuwerenolongertheactualownersoftheaffected
propertiesduetothetransferofownershipevenpriortotheinstitutionoftheaction,andthatthe
actualowners(i.e.,LeonardoandWilliamLim)neededtobesubstitutedinlieuofsaidspouses,
whethertheSpousesLimHioandDoloresChuwerestilllivingoralreadydeceasedasofthe
filingofthepleadingsbecameimmaterial.And,lastly,DeLeoncouldnotdisclaimknowledge
thattheSpousesLimHioandDoloresChuwerenolongerliving.Hisjoiningintheactionasa
voluntaryintervenorchargedhimwithnoticeofalltheotherpersonsinterestedinthelitigation.
He also had an actual awareness of such other persons, as his own complaint in intervention,
supra, bear out in its specific allegations against Leonardo Lim and William Lim, and their
respective spouses. Thus, he could not validly insist that the respondent committed any
dishonestyorfalsificationinrelationtohimortoanyotherparty.

III
Goodfaithmustalwaysmotivateanycomplaint
againstaMemberoftheBar


[19]
According to Justice Cardozo, xxx the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of
wrong,isatthemercyofthetongueofignoranceormalice.Reputationinsuchacallingisa

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 10/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

plantoftendergrowth,anditsbloom,oncelost,isnoteasilyrestored.

A lawyers reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every
lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the
malicious.Itcandoso,firstly,byquicklycuttingdownanypatentlyfrivolouscomplaintagainst
a lawyer and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of
unethicalconduct.ABarthatisinsulatedfromintimidationandharassmentisencouragedtobe
courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper
administrationofjustice.

Thecomplainantinitiatedhiscomplaintpossiblyforthesakeofharassingtherespondent,
either to vex him for taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No.
4674MN,ortogetevenforanimaginedwronginrelationtothesubjectmatterofthepending
action,ortoaccomplishsomeotherdarkpurpose.Theworthlessnessoftheaccusationapparent
fromthebeginninghasimpelledusintoresolvingthecomplaintsoonerthanlater.


WHEREFORE, we dismiss the complaint for disbarment or suspension filed against
Atty.EduardoG.Casteloforutterlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:





CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 11/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice








MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.821.
[2]
Id.,pp.17.
[3]
Id.,pp.45.
[4]
Id.,p.62.
[5]
Id.,pp.6376.
[6]
Id.,pp.137153.
[7]
FormNo.28,attachedtotheRulesofCourt.
[8]
Maciasv.Selda,A.C.No.6442,October21,2004,441SCRA65.
[9]
Agpalo,CommentsontheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandtheCodeofJudicialConduct,2001Edition.
[10]
InRe:ReportontheFinancialAuditConductedontheBooksofAccountsofAtty.RaquelG.Kho,ClerkofCourtIV,Regional
TrialCourt,Oras,EasternSamar,A.M.No.P062177,April13,2007,521SCRA25.
[11]
A.C.No.5379,May9,2003,403SCRA123.
[12]
Agpalo,LegalandJudicialEthics,EighthEdition(2009),pp.89.
[13]
Id.,p.8.
[14]
Rollo,pp.2233(NotethatthecrossclaimwasagainstGeorginaFlores,thetransferor/predecessorininterestofSpousesLim
HioandDoloresChu).
[15]
Id.,pp.3442.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 12/13
5/26/2017 A.C.No.8620

[16]
TheRegistrarofDeedsofMalabonCitywasalsonamedbythecomplainantasadefendanttohiscomplaintinintervention.
[17]
Rollo,pp.4354.
[18]
Id.,pp.5661.
[19]
PeopleoftheStateofNewYorkexrel.AlexanderKarlinv.CharlesW.Culkin,asSheriffoftheCountyofNewYork,248N.Y.
465,162N.E.487,60A.L.R.851.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm 13/13