SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6368. June 13, 2012.]
FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA BENGCO , complainants, vs . ATTY.
PABLO S. BERNARDO , respondent.
DECISION
REYES , J : p
This is a complaint 1 for disbarment led by complainants Fidela G. Bengco (Fidela) and
Teresita N. Bengco (Teresita) against respondent Atty. Pablo Bernardo (Atty. Bernardo)
for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and violation of his
duties and oath as a lawyer.
The acts of the respondent which gave rise to the instant complaint are as follows:
That sometime on or about the period from April 15, 1997 to July 22, 1997, Atty.
Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance and collusion with a certain
Andres Magat [wilfully] and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to
defraud herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by using
false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of
the land belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the
acquaintance of complainants herein and they convinced herein complainant[s]
that if they will nance and deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as
advance money he would expedite the titling of the subject land and further by
means of other similar deceit like misrepresenting himself as lawyer of William
Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the subject land, who is the owner of Plastic
City at Canomay Street, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and he is the one handling
William Gatchalian's business transaction and that he has contracts at NAMREA,
DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation he well knew were
false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainant[s] to give and
deliver the said amount ([P]495,000.00) and once in possession of said amount,
far from complying with his obligation to expedite and cause the titling of the
subject land, [wilfully], unlawfully and illegally misappropriated, misapplied and
converted the said amount to his personal use and bene t and despite demand
upon him to return the said amount, he failed and refused to do so, which acts
constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and
Violation of Duties and Oath as a lawyer. 2 CIAcSa
In support of their complaint, the complainants attached thereto Resolutions dated
December 7, 1998 3 and June 22, 1999 4 of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga and the Of ce of the Provincial
Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga, respectively, nding probable cause for the ling
of the criminal information 5 against both Atty. Bernardo and Andres Magat (Magat)
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 48, charging
them with the crime of Estafa punishable under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal
Code.
The respondent was required to le his Comment. 6 On September 24, 2004, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
respondent led an undated Comment, 7 wherein he denied the allegations against him
and averred the following:
2. He had not deceived both complainants between the period from April 15,
1997 to July 22, 1997 for purposes of getting from them the amount of
[P]495,000.00. It was Andy Magat whom they contacted and who in turn sought
the legal services of the respondent. It was Andy Magat who received the said
money from them.
3. There was no connivance made and entered into by Andy Magat and
respondent. The arrangement for titling of the land was made by Teresita N.
Bengco and Andy Magat with no participation of respondent.
4. The acceptance of the respondent to render his legal service is legal and
allowed in law practice. 8
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation. ACaDTH
On February 16, 2005, the IBP ordered the respondent to submit a veri ed comment
pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 6 of the Rules of Court as it appeared that the
respondent's undated comment filed with the Court was not verified. 9
On March 15, 2005, respondent through counsel requested for an additional fteen (15)
days from March 17, 2005, or until April 1, 2005, within which to comply due to his medical
confinement. 1 0
Thereafter, on April 4, 2005, the respondent led a second motion 1 1 for extension praying
for another 20 days, or until April 22, 2005, alleging that he was still recovering from his
illness.
On August 3, 2005, the case was set for mandatory conference. 1 2 The respondent failed
to appear; thus, the IBP considered the respondent in default for his failure to appear and
for not ling an answer despite extensions granted. The case was then submitted for
report and recommendation. 1 3
Based on the records of the case, Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala
made the following findings:
[O]n or before the period from 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, respondent with the
help and in connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat ("Magat"), by
using false pretenses and deceitful words, [wilfully] and illegally committed
fraudulent acts to the effect that respondent would expedite the titling of the land
belonging to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City, who were the acquaintance of
complainants.
Respondent and Magat convinced complainants that if they nance and deliver
to them the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money, they would expedite the
titling of the subject land. Respondent represented himself to be the lawyer of
William Gatchalian, the owner of Plastic City located at Canomay Street,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, who was allegedly the buyer of the subject land once it
has been titled. Respondent and Magat also represented that they have contacts
at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which representation they
knew to be false, fraudulent and were only made to induce complainants to give
and deliver to them the amount of [P]495,000.00. Once in possession of the said
amount, far from complying with their obligation to expedite and cause the titling
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
of the subject land, respondent and Magat [wilfully], unlawfully and illegally
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to their personal use
and bene t and despite demand upon them to return the said amount, they failed
and refused to do so. TaISEH
In view of the deceit committed by respondent and Magat, complainants led a
complaint for Estafa against the former before the Third Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. In the preliminary
investigation conducted by the said court, it nds suf cient grounds to hold
respondent and Magat for trial for the crime of Estafa de ned under par. 2(a) of
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The case was transmitted to the
Of ce of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga for appropriate action as per
Order dated 7 December 1998.
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of the Of ce of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Pampanga conducted a re-investigation of the case. During the re-investigation
thereof, Magat was willing to reimburse to complainants the amount of
[P]200,000.00 because according to him the amount of [P]295,000.00 should be
reimbursed by respondent considering that the said amount was turned over to
respondent for expenses incurred in the documentation prior to the titling of the
subject land. Both respondent and Magat requested for several extensions for
time to pay back their obligations to the complainants. However, despite
extensions of time granted to them, respondent and Magat failed to ful l their
promise to pay back their obligation. Hence, it was resolved that the offer of
compromise was construed to be an implied admission of guilt. The Asst.
Provincial Prosecutor believes that there was no reason to disturb the ndings of
the investigating judge and an Information for Estafa was led against
respondent and Magat on 8 July 1999 before the Regional Trial Court, San
Fernando, Pampanga.
The failure of the lawyer to answer the complaint for disbarment despite due
notice on several occasions and appear on the scheduled hearings set, shows his
outing resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrates his despiciency for
his oath of office as a lawyer which deserves disciplinary sanction . . . .
From the facts and evidence presented, it could not be denied that respondent
committed a crime that import deceit and violation of his attorney's oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which he was bound to 'obey
the laws of the land.' The commission of unlawful acts, specially crimes involving
moral turpitude, acts of dishonesty in violation of the attorney's oath, grossly
immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers
(Rule 138, Section 27, RRC). ATHCac
The misconduct complained of took place in 1997 and complainants led the
case only on 16 April 2004. As provided for by the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission of Bar Discipline, as amended, dated 24 March 2004, "A complaint
for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years
from the date of the professional misconduct" (Section 1, Rule VIII). 1 4
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that:
. . . [R]espondent ATTY. PABLO A. BERNARDO be SUSPENDED for a period of
TWO YEARS from receipt hereof from the practice of his profession as a lawyer
and as a member of the Bar. 1 5
On February 1, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVII-2007-065,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED
with modi cation , the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex "A"; and, nding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is hereby
ordered, the restitution of the amount of [P]200,000.00 within sixty (60)
days from receipt of notice with Warning that if he does not return the amount
with in sixty days from receipt of this Order then he will be meted the penalty of
Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. 1 6
On May 16, 2007, the respondent promptly led a Motion for Reconsideration 1 7 of the
aforesaid Resolution of the IBP. The respondent averred that: (1) the IBP resolution is not
in accord with the rules considering that the complaint was led more than two (2) years
from the alleged misconduct and therefore, must have been dismissed outright; (2) he did
not commit any misrepresentation in convincing Fidela to give him money to nance the
titling of the land; (3) he was hired as a lawyer through Magat who transacted with Teresita
as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement 1 8 signed by the latter; (4) he was denied
due process when the Investigating Commissioner considered him as in default after
having ignored the representative he sent during the hearing on August 3, 2005; and (5) he
long restituted the amount of P225,000.00 not as an offer of compromise but based on
his moral obligation as a lawyer due to Teresita's declaration that he had to stop acting as
her legal counsel sometime in the third quarter of 1997. The respondent pointed out the
admission made by Fidela in her direct testimony before the RTC that she received the
amount, as evidenced by photocopies of receipts.
In an Order 1 9 dated May 17, 2007 issued by the IBP, the complainant was required to
comment within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. HAEIac
In her Comment, 2 0 Fidela explained that it took them quite some time in ling the
administrative case because they took into consideration the possibility of an amicable
settlement instead of a judicial proceeding since it would stain the respondent's reputation
as a lawyer; that the respondent went into hiding which prompted them to seek the
assistance of CIDG agents from Camp Olivas in order to trace the respondent's
whereabouts; that the respondent was duly accorded the opportunity to be heard; and
nally, that no restitution of the P200,000.00 plus corresponding interest has yet been
made by the respondent.
On June 21, 2008, Fidela led a Manifestation 2 1 stating that the RTC rendered a decision
in the criminal case for Estafa nding the accused, Atty. Bernardo and Magat "guilty of
conspiracy in the commission of Estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal
Code and both are sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as
minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum." 2 2
In a Letter 2 3 dated March 23, 2009, addressed to the IBP, Fidela sought the resolution of
the present action as she was already 86 years of age. Later, an Ex-parte Motion to
Resolve the Case 2 4 dated September 1, 2010 was led by the complainants. In another
Letter dated October 26, 2011, Fidela, being 88 years old, sought for Atty. Bernardo's
restitution of the amount of P200,000.00 so she can use the money to buy her medicine
and other needs.
The Court adopts and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the IBP.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
It is rst worth mentioning that the respondent's defense of prescription is untenable. The
Court has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of
considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the
administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer.
Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard the very oath they
took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from
whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. 2 5 CITcSH
Further, consistent with his failure to le his answer after he himself pleaded for several
extensions of time to le the same, the respondent failed to appear during the mandatory
conference, as ordered by the IBP. As a lawyer, the respondent is considered as an of cer
of the court who is called upon to obey and respect court processes. Such acts of the
respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority which can
not be countenanced.
It can not be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal pro ciency but
also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the
people's faith and con dence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined
— whether in their professional or in their private capacity — for any conduct that is
wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. 2 6
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
Rule 2.03. — A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. — A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undigni ed, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.
There is no question that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself
admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through
Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchased. While he begs for the
Court's indulgence, his contrition is shallow considering the fact that he used his position
as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into believing that he can expedite the
titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not bene t from the money
given by the complainants in the amount of P495,000.00. IcCDAS
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields pro ts. The
gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and
to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. 2 7
It is likewise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal
action led against a lawyer despite having involved the same set of facts. Jurisprudence
has it "that a nding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a nding of
liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the respondent's acquittal does not
necessarily exculpate him administratively." 2 8
In Yu v. Palaña, 2 9 the Court held that:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases
against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they
may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not
constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are
attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial
policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a
lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply
the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal profession
during the whole period that the criminal case is pending nal disposition, when
the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and
for preserving courts of justice from the of cial ministration of persons un t to
practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an
officer of the court. 3 0 (Citations omitted) ETDAaC
As the records reveal, the RTC eventually convicted the respondent for the crime of Estafa
for which he was meted the penalty of sentenced * to suffer six (6) years and one (1) day
of Prision Mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal
as maximum. Such criminal conviction clearly undermines the respondent's moral tness
to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138, Section 27 provides that:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
of ce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such of ce, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
In view of the foregoing, this Court has no option but to accord him the punishment
commensurate to all his acts and to accord the complainants, especially the 88-year-old
Fidela, with the justice they utmost deserve. acAESC
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon notice hereof.
Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN the amount of
P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt
of this Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the Court, through
the Of ce of the Bar Con dant within TEN (10) DAYS therefrom; with a STERN
WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him the additional penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for one (1) year.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in his record as attorney and be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Perez and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
1.Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2.Id. at 1-2.
3.Id. at 4-7.
4.Id. at 8-10.
5.Id. at 11.
6.Resolution dated June 2, 2004; id. at 13.
7.Id. at 17-18.
8.Id. at 17.
9.IBP Folder, Vol. II, p. 1.
10.Id. at 2.
11.Id. at 3.
12.Id. at 4.
13.Id. at 6.
14.IBP Folder, Report and Recommendation, pp. 4-7.
15.Id. at 7.
16.Id. at 1.
17.Id. at 8-10.
18.Id. at 16-19.
19.Id. at 23.
20.Id. at 24-25.
21.Id. at 31-33.
22.Id. at 34.
23.Id. at 36.
24.Id. at 38-39.
25.Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada, 523 Phil. 17, 19 (2006), citing Heck v. Santos, 467 Phil. 798
(2004).
26.Tomlin II v. Atty. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325, 330 (2006).
27.Atty. Khan, Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, 456 Phil. 560, 565-566 (2003).
28.Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty. Nadoza, 374 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
29.A.C. No. 7747, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 21.
30.Id. at 28.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
