3/17/2017 G.R.No.

2104

TodayisFriday,March17,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

A.M.No.2104August24,1989

NARCISOMELENDREZandERLINDADALMAN,complainants,
vs.
ATTY.REYNERIOI.DECENA,respondent.

PERCURIAM:

Inasworncomplaint1dated25September1979,thespousesErlindaDalmanandNarcisoMelendrezchargedReynerioI.
Decena,amemberofthePhilippineBar,withmalpracticeandbreachoftrust.Thecomplainantspousesalleged,among
others,thatrespondenthad,bymeansoffraudanddeceit,takenadvantageoftheirprecariousfinancialsituationandhis
knowledgeofthelawtotheirprejudice,succeededindivestingthemoftheironlyresidentiallotinPagadianCitythat
respondent,whowastheircounselinanestafacaseagainstoneReynaldoPineda,hadcompromisedthatcasewithouttheir
authority.

Inhisanswerdated18March1980,respondentdeniedallthechargeslevelledagainsthimandprayedforthe
dismissalofthecomplaint.

Byresolutiondated14April1980,theadministrativecomplaintwasreferredtotheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.

Accordingly,theSolicitorGeneralforthwithdeputizedtheCityFiscalofPagadianCity,JorgeT.Almonte,to
conductthenecessaryinvestigation,withinstructionstosubmitthereafterthisreportandrecommendation
thereon.FiscalAlmonteheldseveralhearingsontheadministrativecaseuntil15July1982,whenherequested
theSolicitorGeneraltoreleasehimfromthedutyofinvestigatingthecase.

On10September1982,theSolicitorGeneralgrantedFiscalAlmonte'srequestandinhissteadappointedthe
ProvincialFiscalofZamboangadelSur,PedroS.Jamero,whoresumedhearingson15June1983.

RespondentfiledwiththisCourton9June1987,amotionseekingtoinhibitFiscalJamerofromhearingthecase
followedbyanurgentmotionforindefinitepostponementoftheinvestigation.Bothmotionsweredeniedbythe
CourtinaResolutiondated21September1987withinstructionstotheSolicitorGeneraltocompletethe
investigationoftheadministrativecaseandtorenderhisreportandrecommendationthereonwithinthirty(30)
daysfromnotice.

On19July1988,theSolicitorGeneralsubmittedhisReportandRecommendation2dated21June1988.Inas
Report,aftersettingoutthefactsandproceedingsheldinthepresentcase,theSolicitorGeneralpresentedthefollowing:

FINDINGS

ComplainantsallegethatonAugust5,1975,theyobtainedfromrespondentaloanofP4,000.00.
Thisloanwassecuredbyarealestatemortgage(AnnexC,Complainants'Complaint,p.16,
records). InthesaidRealEstateMortgagedocument,however,itwasmadetoappearthatthe
l w p h 1 . t

amountborrowedbycomplainantswasP5,000.00.Confrontedbythisdiscrepancy,respondent
assuredcomplainantsthatsaiddocumentwasamereformality,anduponsuchassurance,
complainantssignedthesame.ThedocumentwasbroughtbycomplainantNarcisoMelendrestoa
NotaryPublicfornotarization.Afterthesamewasnotarized,hegavethedocumenttorespondent.
Despitetheassurance,respondentexactedfromcomplainantsP500.00amonthaspaymentfor
whatisbeyonddisputeusuriousinterestontheP5,000.00loan.Complainantsreligiouslypaidthe
obviouslyusuriousinterestforthreemonths:September,OctoberandNovember,1975.Thenthey
stoppedpayingduetofinancialreverses.Inviewoftheirfailuretopaysaidamountsasinterest,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 1/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.2104

respondentpreparedanewdocumentonMay7,1976,aRealEstateMortgage(AnnexD,
Complaint,p.18,records)overthesamelot3125C,replacingtheformerrealestatemortgage
datedAugust5,1975,butthistimethesumindicatedinsaidnewcontractofmortgageisP
10,000.00,purportedlywithinterestat19%perannum.InthisnewRealEstateMortgage,aspecial
powerofattorneyinfavorofrespondentwasinserted,authorizinghimtosellthemortgagedproperty
atpublicauctionintheeventcomplainantsfailtopaytheirobligationonorbeforeMay30,1976.
Withoutexplainingtheprovisionsofthenewcontracttocomplainants,respondentinsistedthat
complainantssignthesame,againupontheassurancethatthedocumentwasamereformality.
Unsuspectingofthemotiveofrespondent,complainantssignedthedocument.ComplainantsNarciso
MelendresagainbroughtthesamedocumenttoaNotaryPublicfornotarization.Afterthedocument
wasnotarized,hebroughtthesametorespondentwithoutgettingacopyofit.

Complainants,relyingontheassuranceoftherespondentthatthesecondRealEstateMortgagewas
butaformality,neitherbotheredtoaskfromrespondentthestatusoftheirlotnortriedtopaytheir
obligation.Fortheirfailuretopaytheobligation,therespondentonOctober12,1976,appliedforthe
extrajudicialforeclosureofthesecondrealestatemortgage(Exhibit16,Respondent'sPosition
Paper).AlltherequirementsofActNo.3135,asamended,reextrajudicialsaleofmortgagewere
ostensiblycompliedwithbyrespondent.Hence,finally,titlewastransferredtohim,andonJune20,
1979,respondentsoldtheinvolvedpropertytoTrinidadYlananforP12,000.00.

WheninformedoftheabovebyoneSaludAustralladoonthefirstweekofMarch1979(seeSworn
StatementofcomplainantNarcisoMelendres,p.6,FolderNo.2ofcase),andnothavingknownthe
legalimplicationsoftheprovisionsofthesecondRealEstateMortgagewhichtheyhadexecuted,
complainantscouldnotbelievethattitletotheirlothadalreadybeentransferredtorespondentand
thatrespondenthadalreadysoldthesametoathirdperson.

UponlearningofthesaleinMarch,1979,complainantstriedtoraisetheamountofP10,000.00and
wenttorespondent'shouseonMay30,1979topaytheirobligation,hopingthattheycouldredeem
theirproperty,althoughthreeyearshadalreadylapsedfromthedateofthemortgage.

RespondentdidnotaccepttheprofferedP10,000.00,butinsteadgavecomplainantsasheetof
paper(AnnexB,Complainants'PositionPaper),whichindicatedthatthetotalindebtednesshad
soaredtoP20,400.00.Thecomputationwasmadeinrespondent'sownhandwriting.Complainants
wenthomewithshatteredhopesandwithgriefintheirhearts.Hence,theinstantcompetentfor
disbarmentagainstrespondentfiledonOctober5,1979.

RespondentDENIESalltheallegationsofcomplainants.Hemaintainsthatwhatappearsonthetwo
documentsallegedlyexecutedbycomplainants,i.e.,thattheyobtainedaloanofP5,000.00on
August5,1975andanotherP10,000.00onMay7,1976,isallegedlythetruth,andclaimsthathein
truthdeliveredtheallegedamountofP5,000.00tocomplainantsandnotP4,000.00.Withrespectto
thesecondloan,respondentclaimsthathedeliveredtocomplainantsP8,000.00,plustheP2,000.00
loanpreviouslyextended[to]complainants[by]oneReginoVillanueva,whichloanhadbeen
indorsedtorespondentforcollection,thusmakingatotalofP10,000.00,asappearingonsaid
document.Respondentdeniesthatheexactedusuriousinterestof10%amonthorP500.00from
complainants.HeassertsthatthefactthatcomplainantswereabletosecurealoanfromtheInsular
BankofAsiaandAmerica(IBAA)onlyprovesthetruthofhisallegationthatthetitleoftheproperty,at
thetimecomplainantsobtainedaloanfromIBAAonApril1976,wasclearofanyencumbrance,since
complainantshadalreadypaidtheoriginalloanofP5,000.00obtainedfromrespondentthat
complainantsknewfullywellalltheconditionsofsaidmortgageandthathisacquisitionofthe
propertyinquestionwasinaccordancewiththeircontractandthelawonthematter.Thus,hedenies
thathehasviolatedanyrightofthecomplainants.

Afterweighingtheevidenceofbothcomplainantsandrespondent,wefindagainstrespondent.

WhilecomplainantsarecorrectintheirclaimthattheyactuallyobtainedanactualcashofP4,000.00,
theyareonlypartlycorrectintheclaimthatoutoftheP10,000.00appearinginthesecondReal
EstateMortgage,P6,000.00wasappliedtointerestconsideringthatnotalltheP6,000.00butonly
P4,000.00wasappliedtointerest,computedasfollows:thefirstloanofP5,000.00wassupposedly
dueonAugust31,1975.Complainantspaid10%monthlyinterestorP500.00onSeptember30,
1975,October31,1975andNovember30,1975.Consequently,beginningDecember31,1975upto
May31,1976(thedateoftheexecutionofthesecondRealEstateMortgage)atotalofsix(6)
monthslapsed.Six(6)monthsatP500.00equalsP3,000.00,whichamountplustheP2,000.00
complainants'loantooneEngr.Villanueva(indorsedtorespondentforcollection)totalsP5,000.00.
AddingthisamounttothepreviousP5,000.00indicatedloansecuredbythefirstmortgageresultsin
P10,000.00,theamountappearinginthesecondRealEstateMortgage.Section7,Rule130ofthe
RulesofCourtprovides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 2/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.2104

SEC.7.Evidenceofwrittenagreements.Whenthetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedto
writing,itistobeconsideredascomplainingallsuchterms,and,therefore,therecanbe,asbetween
thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofthetermsoftheagreementotherthanthe
contentsofthewriting,exceptinthefollowingcases:

(a)Whereamistakeorimperfectionofthewriting,oritsfailuretoexpressthetrueintentand
agreementoftheparties,orthevalidityoftheagreementisputinissuebythepleadings

(b)Wherethereisanintrinsicambiguityinthewriting.Theterm"agreement"includeswills.

ThereisnodisputethatthetwodocumentsdenominatedRealEstateMortgagescoveringthe
supposedoriginalloanofP5,000.00andtheinflatedP10,000.00,respectively,werevoluntarily
signedbythecomplainants.Thegeneralruleisthatwhenthepartieshavereducedtheiragreement
towriting,itispresumedthattheyhavemadethewritingtheonlyrepositoryandmemorialofthe
truth,andwhateverisnotfoundinthewritingmustbeunderstoodtohavebeenwaivedand
abandoned.

However,theruleisnotabsoluteasitadmitsofsomeexceptions,asaforequoted.Oneofthe
exceptions,thatis,failuretoexpressthetrueintentandagreementoftheparties,appliesinthis
case.Fromthefactsobtaininginthecase,itisclearthatthecomplainantswereinducedtosignthe
RealEstateMortgagedocumentsbythefalseandfraudulentrepresentationsofrespondentthat
eachofthesuccessivedocumentswasaareformality.

Whileitmaybetruethatcomplainantsarenotatallilliterate,respondent,beingalawyer,should
haveatleastexplainedtocomplainantsthelegalimplicationsoftheprovisionsoftherealestate
mortgage,particularlytheprovisionappointinghimasthecomplainants'attorneyinfactintheevent
ofdefaultinpaymentsonthepartofcomplainants.Whileitmaybeconcededthatitispresumedthat
inpracticethenotarypublicapprisescomplainantsofthelegalimplicationsofthecontract,itisof
commonknowledgethatmostnotariespublicdonotgothroughthedesiredpractice.Respondentat
leastcouldhaveinformedthecomplainantsbysendingademandlettertothemtopaytheir
obligationasotherwisehewouldproceedtosellthelotatpublicauctionaspertheircontract.This
respondentfailedtodo,despitethefactthatheknewfullywenthatcomplainantsweretryingtheir
besttoraisemoneytobeabletopaytheirobligationtohim,asshownbytheloanobtainedby
complainantsfromtheIBAAonApril8,1976.Inthisconnection,itmaybestatedthatcomplainants,
peradviceofrespondenthimself,returnedtheproceedsoftheIBAAloantothebankimmediatelyon
April30,1976,consideringthatthenetproceedsoftheloanfromsaidbankwasonlyP4,300.00and
notenoughtopaytheindicatedloanfromrespondentofP5,000.00,whichpercomputationof
respondentwouldalreadyhaveearnedinterestofP2,500.00forfive(5)months(December1975to
April,1976).

RespondentclaimsthatcomplainantshadpaidhimtheoriginalloanofP5,000.00,andthatthiswas
thereasonwhycomplainantswereabletomortgagethelottothebankfreefromanyencumbrance.
Thisclaimisincorrect.Thereasonwhythetitle(T2684)wasfreefromanyencumbrancewassimply
becauseofthefactthatthefirstRealEstateMortgagefortheindicatedloanofP5,000.00(theactual
amountwasonlyP4,000.00)hadnotbeenannotatedatthebackofthetitle(seeAnnexB,p.14,
rec.).

RespondentalsodeniesthatcomplainantsofferedtohimtheamountofPl0,000.00aspaymentof
theloan,allegingthatiftheofferweretrue,hecouldhavereadilyacceptedthesamesincehesold
thelotforalmostthesameamount,foronlyP12,000.00,adifferenceofafewthousandpesos.
Respondent'sdenialisspacious.

Indeed,complainantsmadetheoffer,butrespondentrefusedthesameforthesimplereasonthat
theofferwasmadeonMay30,1979,three(3)yearsaftertheexecutionofthemortgageonMay31,
1976.Withitslapseoftime,respondentdemandedobviouslythepaymentoftheaccumulated
substantialinterestforthreeyears,asshownbyhisowncomputationinasownhandwritingona
sheetofpaper(AnnexC,Complainants'PositionPaper,FolderNo.2). l w p h 1 . t

Inviewofalltheforegoing,theobservationmadebytheHearingOfficerisworthquoting:

Inthehumbleopinionoftheundersignedthepivotalquestionwithrespecttothisparticularchargeis
whoseversionistobebelieved.Isittheversionofthecomplainantsortheversionofthe
respondent.

Inresolvingthisissuethepossiblemotiveonthepartofthecomplainantsinfilingthepresent
complaintagainsttherespondentmustbecarefullyexaminedandconsidered.Atthebeginningthere
wasaharmoniousrelationshipbetweenthecomplainantsandtherespondentsomuchsothat

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 3/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.2104

respondentwasevenengagedascounselofthecomplainantsanditisbuthumannaturethatwhen
respondentextendedaloantothecomplainantsthelatterwouldbegratefultotheformer.However,
inthecaseatbar,complainantsfiledacomplaintagainsttherespondentinspiteofthegreat
disparitybetweenthestatusofthecomplainantsandtherespondent.Admittedly,respondentisina
betterpositionfinancially,sociallyandintellectually.Tothemindoftheundersigned,complainants
wereonlycompelledtofiletheaboveentitledcomplaintagainsttherespondentbecausetheyfeltthat
theyaresoaggrievedofwhattherespondenthasdonetothem.Itisforthisreasonthereforethat
theundersignedisinclinedtobelievetheversionofthecomplainantsratherthanoftherespondent.
Inadditionthereto,therespondentasalawyercouldreallyseetoitthatthetransactionbetweenthe
complainantsandhimselfonpapersappearlegalandinorder.Besides,thereisampleevidencein
therecordsofitscasethatrespondentisactuallyengagedinlendingmoneyatleastinalimitedway
andthattheinterestattherateoftenpercentamonthisbutcommonamongmoneylendersduring
thetimeofthetransactionsinquestion'

Goingnowintothesecondcharge,complainantsallegedthatrespondent,whowastheircounsel
(privateprosecutor)inCriminalCaseNo.734,forestafa,againstaccusedReynaldoPineda,
compromisedthecasewiththeaccusedwithouttheirconsentandreceivedtheamountofP500.00
asadvancepaymentfortheamicablesettlement,withouthowever,givingtothecomplainantstheId
amountnorinformingthemofsaidsettlementandpayment.

Again,respondentdeniestheallegationandclaimsthattheamicablesettlementwaswiththe
consentofcomplainantwifeErlindaDalmanMelendre[z].

Weareinclinedtobelievetheversionofthecomplainants.

ItisadmittedthatcomplainantswerenotinterestedinputtingtheaccusedReynaldoPinedatojailbut
ratherinmerelyrecoveringtheirmoneyofP2,000.00.Atthisstage,relationshipbetween
complainantsandrespondentwasnotyetstrained,andrespondent,ascounselofthecomplainants
inthiscase,knewthatcomplainantsweremerelyinterestedinsaidrecovery.Knowingthis,
respondentonhisownvolitiontalkedtoaccusedandtriedtosettlethecaseamicablyforP2,000.00.
HeacceptedtheamountofP500.00asadvancepayment,beingthentheonlyamountcarriedbythe
accusedPineda.AreceiptwassignedbybothrespondentandaccusedPineda(AnnexM,p.34,
record).However,respondentdidnotinformcomplainantsaboutthisadvancepayment,perhaps
becausehewasstillwaitingforthecompletionofthepaymentofP2,000.00beforeturningoverthe
wholeamounttocomplainants.

Atanyrate,complainantssawaccusedPinedagivetheabovementionedP500.00torespondent,but
theywereashamedthentoaskdirectlyofrespondentwhatthemoneywasallabout.

OnJune27,1979,barelyamonthafterMay30,1979,whenthecomplainantshadalreadylosttheir
trustandrespectand/orconfidenceinrespondentuponknowingwhathappenedtotheirlotand,
moreso,uponrespondent'srefusaltoacceptthePl0,000.00offeredbycomplainantstoredeemthe
same,NarcisoMelendre[z]sawtheaccusedPinedaonhiswayhomeandconfrontedhimonthe
P500.00thathadbeengiventorespondent.AccusedthenshowedcomplainantMelendresthe
receipt(AnnexM,Id.)showingthattheP500.00wasanadvancepaymentforthesupposed
settlement/dismissalofthecasefiledbycomplainantsagainsthim.

Sensingorfeelingthatrespondentwasfoolingthem,complainantsthenfiledamotionbeforethe
courtwhichwastryingthecriminalcaseandrelievedrespondentastheircounsel.

TheInvestigatingFiscal,whoheardthecaseandsawthedemeanorofthewitnessesintestifying,
hadthistosay:

Withrespecttothesecondcharge,thefactthatrespondentreceivedP500.00fromReynaldoPineda
isdulyestablished.Boththecomplainantsandtherespondentagreedthatthesaidamountwas
giventotherespondentinconnectionwithacriminalcasewhereinthecomplainantsweretheprivate
offendedparties:thatReynaldoPinedaistheaccusedandthattherespondentistheprivate
prosecutorofthesaidcase.Thepivotalissueinthisparticularchargeiswhethertherespondent
receivedtheamountofP500.00fromReynaldoPinedaasanadvancepaymentofanamicable
settlemententeredintobythecomplainantsandtheaccusedortherespondentreceivedsaid
amountfromtheaccusedwithouttheknowledgeandconsentofthecomplainants.Ifitistrueas
allegedbytherespondentthatheonlyreceiveditforandinbehalfofthecomplainantsasadvance
paymentofanamicablesettlementwhyisitthatthesamewasquestionedbythecomplainants?
Whyisitthatitwasnotthecomplainantswhosignedthereceiptforthesaidamount?Howcomethat
assoonascomplainantsknewthatthesaidamountwasgiventotherespondent,theformerfileda
motionincourttorelieverespondentastheircounselonthegroundthattheyhavelostfaithand
confidenceonhim?Ifitisreallytruethatcomplainantshaveknowledgeandhaveconsentedtothis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 4/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.2104

amicablesettlementtheyshouldbegratefultotheeffortsoftheirprivateprosecutoryetthefactis
thattheyresentedthesameandwenttotheextentofdisqualifyingtherespondentastheirprivate
prosecutor.ReynaldoPinedahimselfexecutedanaffidavitbelyingtheclaimoftherespondent.'

Clearly,thecomplainedactsasdescribedandlevelledagainstrespondentDecenaarecontraryto
justice,honesty,modesty,orgoodmoralsforwhichhemaybesuspended.Themoralturpitudefor
whichanattorneymaybedisbarredmayconsistofmisconductineitherhisprofessionalornon
professionalattitude(Royongv.Oblena,7SCRA859).Thecomplainedactsofrespondentimply
somethingimmoralinthemselves,regardlessofthefactwhethertheyarepunishablebylaw.The
doingoftheactitself,andnotitsprohibitionbystatute,fixesthemoralturpitude(Bartosvs.U.S.Dist.
CourtforDistrictofNebraskaC.C.C.Neb]19F[2d]722).

Apartingcomment.

Alltheaboveisnottosaythatcomplainantsthemselvesarefaultless.

Complainantsshouldlikewisebeblamedfortrustingtherespondenttoomuch.Theydidnotbotherto
keepacopyofthedocumentstheyexecutedandconsideringthattheyadmittedtheydidnot
understandthecontentsofthedocuments,theydidnotbothertohavethemexplainedbyanother
lawyerorbyanyknowledgeablepersonintheirlocality.Likewise,foraperiodofthreeyears,theydid
notbothertoaskforrespondentthestatusoftheirlotand/ortheirobligationtohim.Their
complacencyorapathyamountingalmosttonegligencecontributedtotheexpedientlossoftheir
propertythruthelegalmanueversemployedbyrespondent.Hence,respondent'sliabilitymerits
mitigation.(Emphasissupplied)

andmadethefollowingrecommendation:

WHEREFORE,itisrespectfullyrecommendedthatAtty.ReynerioI.Decenabesuspendedfromthe
practiceoflawforaperiodoffive(5)years.3

TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,throughFiscalsAlmonteandJamero,heldseveralhearingsduringthe
investigationofthepresentadministrativecase:CityFiscalJorgeT.Almontewasabletoholdsix(6)actual
hearingsoutoftwentyfive(25)resettings4Whileonlyfive(5)actualhearings,outofforty(40)resettings5wereheld
underProvincialFiscalPedroS.Jamero.Inthosehearings,thecomplainantspresentedanumberofwitnesseswho,after
theirdirecttestimony,werecrossexaminedbythecounselforrespondentcomplainantNarcisoMelendrezalsotestified
andwasaccordinglycrossexamined.Consideringthelongdelayincurredintheinvestigationoftheadministrativecaseand
havingbeenpressedbytheSolicitorGeneralimmediatelytocompletetheinvestigation,FiscalJameroposedachangeof
procedure,fromtrialtypeproceedingstorequiringthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivepositionpapers.Thecomplainants
immediatelyfiledtheirpositionpaperwhichconsistedoftheirseparateswornstatements,(thatofNarcisoMelendrezwasin
aquestionandanswerform),theirdocumentaryexhibitsandanaffidavitofoneJeorgeG.Santos.Respondentalsofiledhis
counteraffidavitandaffidavitsofhiswitnesses,withseveralannexesinsupportthereofInthehealingof28October1987,
whichhadbeensetforthecrossexaminationofthecomplainantsandtheirwitnessesbyrespondent,thecomplainants
refusedtosubmitthemselvestocrossexaminationonthegroundthattheorderofthehearingofficerdated17December
1986declaringrespondent'srightofcrossexaminationashavingbeenwaived,hadbecomefinalandexecutory.
Respondentquestionsnowtheevidentiaryvalueofthecomplainants'positionpaper,nothavingpassedthroughanycross
examinationandarguesthatthenonsubmissionofthecomplainantsandtheirwitnessestocrossexaminationconstitutesa
denialofhisrighttodueprocess.

Wedonotthinkrespondent'srighttoconfrontthecomplainantsandtheirwitnessesagainsthimhasbeen
violated,RespondentinfactcrossexaminedcomplainantNarcisoMelendrezandsomeofthewitnesseswhich
complainantshadpresentedearlier.AspointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneral,therecordoftheproceedingsshows
thatrespondenthadalltheopportunitytocrossexaminetheotherwitnessesofthecomplainants(thosewhose
affidavitswereattachedtocomplainants'positionpaper)hadhewantedto,buthadforfeitedsuchopportunityby
askingfornumerouscontinuanceswhichindicatedaclearattemptonhisparttodelaytheinvestigation
proceedings.Respondenthadinfactrequestedatotaloftwentythree(23)resettingsduringtheinvestigation
proceedings:hehadeight(8)underFiscalAlmonteandfifteen(15)underFiscalJamero.Therewerealso
instanceswhererespondentaskedforpostponementandatthesametimeresetthehearingtoaspecificdateof
hischoiceonwhichneitherhenorascounselwouldappear.Thatattitudeofrespondenteventuallyledthe
hearingofficertodeclarehis(respondent's)righttocrossexaminethecomplainantsandtheirwitnessesas
havingbeenwaivedinhisorderof17December1986.Respondentcannotnowclaimthathehadbeendeprived
belowoftheopportunitytoconfrontthecomplainantsandtheirwitnesses.

Aftercarefullygoingthroughtherecordoftheproceedingsaswellastheevidencepresentedbybothparties,we
agreewiththefindingsandconclusionsoftheSolicitorGeneral.

Thefollowingactsofrespondent:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 5/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.2104

1.makingitappearonthe5August1975realestatemortgagethattheamountloanedto
complainantswasP5,000.00insteadofP4,000.00

2.exactinggrosslyunreasonableandusuriousinterest

3.makingitappearinthesecondrealestatemortgageof7May1976thattheloanextendedto
complainantshadescalatedtoP10,000.00

4.failingtoinformcomplainantsoftheimportoftherealmortgagedocumentsandinducingthemto
signthosedocumentswithassurancesthattheyweremerelyforpurposesof"formality"

5.failingtodemandorrefrainingfromdemandingpaymentfromcomplainantsbeforeeffecting
extrajudicialforeclosureofthemortgagedpropertyand

6.failingtoinformorrefrainingfrominformingcomplainantsthattherealestatemortgagehad
alreadybeenforeclosedandthatcomplainantshadarighttoredeemtheforeclosedpropertywithin
acertainperiodoftime.

constitutedeceptionanddishonestyandconductunbecomingamemberoftheBar.WeagreewiththeSolicitor
Generalthattheactsofrespondent"implysomethingimmoralinthemselvesregardlessofwhethertheyare
punishablebylaw"andthattheseactsconstitutemoralturpitude,being"contrarytojustice,honesty,modestyor
goodmorals."ThestandardrequiredfrommembersoftheBarisnot,ofcourse,satisfiedbyconductwhich
merelyavoidscollisionwithourcriminallaw.Evenso,respondent'sconduct,infact,maybepenalizableunderat
leastonepenalstatutetheantiusurylaw.

Thesecondchargeagainstrespondentrelatestoactsdoneinhisprofessionalcapacity,thatis,doneatatime
whenhewascounselforthecomplainantsinacriminalcaseforestafaagainstaccusedReynaldoPineda.There
aretwo(2)aspectstothischarge:thefirstisthatrespondentDecenaeffectedacompromiseagreement
concerningthecivilliabilityofaccusedReynaldoPinedawithouttheconsentandapprovalofthecomplainants
thesecondisthat,havingreceivedtheamountofP500.00asanadvancepaymentonthis"settlement,"hefailed
toinformcomplainantsofthatadvancepaymentandmoreover,didnotturnovertheP500.00tothe
complainants.Thefactsshowthatrespondent"settled"theestafacaseamicablyforP2,000.00withoutthe
knowledgeandconsentofcomplainants.Respondentinformedcomplainantsoftheamicable"settlement"andof
theP500.00advancepaymentonlyafterpetitionerNarcisoMelendrezhadconfrontedhimaboutthesematters.
AndrespondentneverdidturnovertocomplainantstheP500.00.Respondentispresumedtobeawareofthe
rulethatlawyerscannot"withoutspecialauthority,compromisetheirclients'litigationorreceiveanythingin
dischargeofaclient'sclaim,butthefullamountincash.6Respondent'sfailuretoturnovertocomplainantstheamount
givenbyaccusedPinedaaspartial"settlement"oftheestafacaseunderscoreshislackofhonestyandcandorindealing
withhisclients.

Generally,alawyershouldnotbesuspendedordisbarredformisconductcommittedinhispersonalornon
professionalcapacity.Wherehowever,misconductoutsidehisprofessionaldealingsbecomessopatentandso
grossastodemonstratemoralunfitnesstoremaininthelegalprofession,theCourtmustsuspendorstrikeout
thelawyer'snamefromtheRolloofAttorneys.7Thenatureoftheofficeofanattorneyatlawrequiresthatheshallbea
personofgoodmoralcharacter.Thisqualificationisnotonlyaconditionprecedenttoadmissiontothepracticeoflawits
continuedpossessionisalsoessentialforremaininginthepracticeoflaw,intheexerciseofprivilegesofmembersofthe
Bar.Grossmisconductonthepartofalawyer,althoughnotrelatedtothedischargeofprofessionaldutiesasamemberof
theBar,whichputshismoralcharacterinseriousdoubt,rendershimunfittocontinueinthepracticeoflaw.8

Intheinstantcase,theexploitativedeceptionexercisedbyrespondentattorneyuponthecomplainantsinhis
privatetransactionswiththem,andtheexactingofunconscionableratesofinterest,consideredtogetherwiththe
actsofprofessionalmisconductcommittedbyrespondentattorney,compelthisCourttotheconvictionthathehas
lostthatgoodmoralcharacterwhichisindispensableforcontinuedmembershipintheBar.

WHEREFORE,respondentReynerioI.DecenaisherebyDISBARREDandhisnameshallbestrickenfromthe
RolloofAttorneys.LetacopyofthisResolutionbeFURNISHEDeachtotheBarConfidantandspreadonthe
personalrecordsofrespondentattorney,andtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.

Fernan,(C.J.),Narvasa,MelencioHerrera,Gutierrez,Jr.,inCruz,Paras,Feliciano,Gancayco,Padilla,Bidin,
Sarmiento,Cortes,GrnoAquino,MedialdeaandRegalado,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Thecomplaintwasoriginallyfiledon29August1979withtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
(ZamboangadelSurChapter)andwasreferredtothisCourton17November1979.

2Rollo,p.94ReportandRecommendation,pp.4259.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 6/7
3/17/2017 G.R.No.2104

3Id.,pp.5253.

4December22,1980January9,1981January24,1981February7,1981February21,1981
February28,1981March7,1981March26&27,1981April9&10,1981April27&28,1981May
12,1981May13,1981July2,1981July3,1981August17&19,1981October5&8,1981
October7to8,1981November23to26,1981February22to26,1982February22,1982
February23,1982February24,1982April29&30,1982June10to11,1982andJune28to29,1
982(Total25).

5June15,1983November,1983December12,1983February24,1984March1,1984April
17,1984May9&16,1984June20to21,1984July16,1984September5,1984October3,
1984October22,1984December27,1984February18,1985March13,1985April29,1985
May9,1985May28to29,1985July17,1985September27,1985October10,1985November
13,1985January27,1986February20,1986October16,1986November7,1986November
11,1986December17,1986December24,1986January9,1987February26,1987March26,
1987April24,1987May18,1987:June8,1987October16,1987October21,1987October26,
1987andOctober28,1987(Total40).

6Section23,Rule138oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.

7Manolov.Gan,93Phil.202(1953).

8Caballerov.Deipairan60SCRA136(1974)Balinonv.DeLeon,94Phil.277(1954).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/aug1989/am_2104_1989.html 7/7