Servants of the law

If lawyers would only adhere to the oath they took at the start of their careers, the profession may not have as bad a reputation as it now has. In fact, even if they may have forgotten their lawyers’ oath, there are enough "canons" to guide them along the way like the one which tells them not to engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct". This case of Atty. Tanggol (not his true name) is an example which every lawyer should avoid.

Atty. Tanggol is married to Minda, one of the six heirs (three sisters and two brothers) of the late spouses Jaime and Naty who died intestate. Among the properties left by the deceased were three parcels of land located in Cavite: lot 467 covered by TCT No. 1657 containing an area of 21,454 sq. meters; lot 603 covered by TCT No. 7865 containing an area of 16,073 sq. m. and lot 605 covered by TCT No.4583 containing an area 22, 131 sq. m.

To settle the estate, two documents were drawn up: an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate dated November 11, 1986 covering lot 467 containing an area of 21, 454 sq. m.; and another Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated March 17, 1995 covering lot 603 containing an area of 16,073 sq. m.

In the November 11, 1986 Extrajudicial Settlement, only Minda and her sister Mely were declared as the children of the spouses and thus adjudicated only between them the said lot 467 to the exclusion of their other siblings. Atty. Tanggol knew that his wife had other brothers and sisters aside from Mely. In fact, one of them, Linda, who resided in the US used to saty with them when she was in the Philippines. Still, he presented the document to the Register of Deeds to effect the transfer of title of the said lot in the name of his wife and his sister-in-law Mely.

In the March 17,1995 Extrajudicial Settlement, it was Atty. Tanggol’s wife Minda who signed the name of another sister Linda on a purported waiver by the latter of her rights over lot 603. Instead of advising his wife to secure a written special power of attorney and against committing falsification, Atty. Tanggol again presented the said document to the Register of Deeds to secure a new title for the lot in the name of his wife and Mely

When Linda learned about these falsifications, Linda filed a complaint for disbarment against his brother-in-law, Atty. Tanggol. According to Linda, Atty. Tanggol took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if it involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful or immoral act. Linda said that Atty. Tanggol should be disbarred for violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of legal and judicial ethics.

Was Linda correct?

Yes.

There was concealment of the fact that there were other compulsory heirs to the estate of the deceased. Atty. Tanggol is the brother-in-law of Linda. Being married to Linda’s sister, he knew of his wife’s siblings. In fact Linda stayed with them while she was in the Philippines. It also bears noting that he was consulted regarding the falsification of Linda’s signature in the extrajudicial Settlement of March 17, 1995 which contains a purported waiver by Linda of her right over lot 603. Such act of counterfeiting Linda’s signature to make it appear that she had participated in the execution of the document is tantamount to falsification of public document.

Atty. Tanggol did not advise his wife and his sister-in-law from doing acts which are contrary to law. He must have kept in mind the first and foremost duty of a lawyer which is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution, and obey the laws of the land. For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and dispensation of justice. He should not, therefore, engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. By his actions, Atty. Tanggol has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. This is the ruling in the case of (Ting-Dumali vs. Torres Adm. Case 5161, April 14, 2004)

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]