CASE
Section 34 – Active Participation in the Development of the Legal Profession
G.R. No. 139137 March 31, 2000
ALFREDO ARQUELADA, ET. AL., petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, respondent.
FACTS:
Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez was subject of an administrative charge with "unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct
unbecoming an attorney." The charges are contained in the Joint Complaint-
Affidavit for Disbarment filed by the spouses David W. Williams and Marisa B.
Williams.
Atty. Enriquez was the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in a Civil Case before
the RTC, Branch 33, Dumaguete City. According to the complainant-spouses,
Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy. A TCT 1 was then
issued in her favor, stating that she is "Filipino, married to David W. Williams,
an American citizen." In 2004, Atty. Enriquez charged her with falsification of
public documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dumaguete City.
Alleging further that, in malicious violation of the rules governing the practice
of law, Attorney Rudy T. Enriquez cited outdated material in his complaint-
affidavit and in his comments to counter-affidavit. He then knowingly applied
this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan Williams
automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and
was thus prohibited to own land in the Philippines, thereby making her guilty
of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in Negros Oriental.
In her counter-affidavit complainant cites Article IV, Section 4 of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that she would not lose her citizenship when she
married an American unless she renounced it in a specific act.
1
Transfer Certificate of Title
That, in reply, Attorney Enriquez, quotes more outdated law, declaring that her
"act of marrying" her husband was equivalent to renouncing her citizenship.
He also doggedly attempts to show that the 1987 Constitution supports his
position, not Marisa’s. It was countered by Complainant who pointed out that
Atty. Enriquez is a retired judge, who knows that the false charge (that Marisa
Williams is an American) "will not prevail in the end." In turn, Atty. Enriquez,
insisted that the disbarment complaint was a mere tactic to divert attention
from the criminal charges against the complainants, and that the charges
against him were bereft of any factual basis.
Upon referral to IBP for investigation who required the filing of verified
position papers, complainants claimed that Atty. Enriquez had maliciously and
knowingly filed fabricated cases against them and that his acts were forms of
attempted extortion. For his part, Atty. Enriquez maintained that Marisa
Williams was no longer a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines as a result of
her marriage to David Williams.
At first, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala ruled that Atty. Enriquez was
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and should be suspended for six (6) months
but the IBP Commission on modified the ruling to the effect that Atty. Enriquez
be "reprimanded, with a warning and advice to study each and every opinion
he may give to his clients."
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. ENRIQUEZ CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR HIS
ACTUATIONS PARTICULARLY UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL AND
DECEITFUL ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, AND
WITH CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN ATTORNEY
RULING:
The SC held that Atty. Enriquez is administratively liable for his actuations, as
found by the Investigating Commissioner, there is no evidence shown by
respondent that complainant Marisa Bacatan-Williams has renounced her
Filipino citizenship except her Certificate of Marriage, which does not show
that she has automatically acquired her husband’s citizenship upon her
marriage to him. The cases cited by respondent are not applicable in this case
as it is clear that they refer to aliens acquiring lands in the Philippines.
The Bar has been integrated for the attainment of the following objectives: (a)
elevate the standards of the legal profession, (b) improve the administration
of justice, and (c) to enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively (In re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22). In line
with these objectives of the Integrated Bar, lawyers must keep themselves
abreast of legal developments. To do this, the lawyer must walk with the
dynamic movements of the law and jurisprudence. He must acquaint himself at
least with the newly promulgated laws, the recent decisions of the Supreme
Court and of the significant decisions of the Court of Appeals. There are other
executive orders, administrative circulars, regulations and other rules
promulgated by other competent authorities engaged in the administration of
justice. The lawyer’s life is one of continuous and laborious study, otherwise,
his skill and knowledge of the law and related disciplines will lag behind and
become obscure due to obsoleteness (Canon 5, Code of Professional
Responsibility.)
As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, Canon 5 of the CPR2
requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.
Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does
not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a retired judge,
respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-
informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems
confronting a client. In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less
than the Constitution, the most basic law of the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s
mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability and with
utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal
developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs. Thus,
in championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not
only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer’s oath, but
should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latter’s
cause be dismissed on a technical ground. Ignorance encompasses both
substantive and procedural laws.
2
Code of Professional Responsibility
The penalty of reprimand, as recommended by the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, was meted out to Atty. Enriquez with stern warning that a repetition
of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Case Law / Doctrines / Rules Cited:
“Canon 5 of the CPR requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws
and jurisprudence.”
The Bar has been integrated for the attainment of the following objectives:
(a) elevate the standards of the legal profession, (b) improve the
administration of justice, and (c) to enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively (In re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines,
49 SCRA 22). In line with these objectives of the Integrated Bar, lawyers must
keep themselves abreast of legal developments.
Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of
his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the
law and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education
programs. (Fajardo v. Dela Torre, A.C. No. 6295, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA
125, 131, citing Rabanal v. Tugalde, A.C. No. 1372, June 27, 2002, 383 SCRA
484 and Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 142689, October 17, 2002,
391 SCRA 192.)
According to Standard 3.0 of said Guidelines, the factors to be considered in
imposing sanctions include (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental
state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct;
and (d) the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors. Under Standard
9.3, the "absence of a prior disciplinary record" is considered a mitigating
factor.
The lawyer’s life is one of continuous and laborious study, otherwise, his skill
and knowledge of the law and related disciplines will lag behind and become
obscure due to obsoleteness (Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.)
