Back to Index
1966 / Apr

A.C. No. 241 - APRIL 1966 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 241April 30, 1966 Rebecca M. Miranda vs. Francisco Fuentes G.R. No. L-23294April 30, 1966 Namarco Employees And Workers' Association vs. Emiliano Tabigne, et al. G.R. No. L-22305April 30, 1966 Praxedes Gabriel, et al vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-22210April 30, 1966 Pilar T. del Rosario, et al vs. Damian L. Jimenez, et al G.R. No. L-22192April 30, 1966 In re: Virgilio Lim Tan. Virgilio Lim Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines. G.R. No. L-22143April 30, 1966 Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Antonio Tiongson, et al. G.R. No. L-22085April 30, 1966 In re: Segunda vda. de Gamir. Consuelo G. Diaz vs. Thelma G. Sawamoto G.R. No. L-21760April 30, 1966 Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Java Pacific and Hoegh Lines, et al G.R. No. L-21693April 30, 1966 Procopio F. Eleazar vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-21685April 30, 1966 Cleto Asprec vs. Victoriano Itchon, et al. G.R. No. L-21623April 30, 1966 Rizal Surety and Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al G.R. No. L-21471April 30, 1966 Vicente S. Dy Reyes, et al vs. Fructuoso Ortega, et al. G.R. No. L-21460April 30, 1966 American Machinery and Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al G.R. No. L-21440April 30, 1966 Sun Bros. Appliances, Inc. vs. Angel Al. Caluntad G.R. No. L-21139April 30, 1966 Central Azucacera Don Pedro vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21034April 30, 1966 Intestate Estate of Thomas Fallon, et al. Martiniano O. dela Cruz vs. Emilio Camon, et al. G.R. No. L-20875April 30, 1966 Rizal Surety and Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-20721April 30, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Martin Alagao, et al. G.R. No. L-20687April 30, 1966 Maximino Valdepeñas vs. Philippine of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20155April 30, 1966 Lexal Pure Drug Laboratories vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-20018April 30, 1966 Chiu Hap Chiu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19869April 30, 1966 Patricio M. Miiguel vs. Jose C. Zulueta, et al. G.R. No. L-19613April 30, 1966 Alfonso G. Lopez vs. Filipinas Compañia de Seguros G.R. No. L-19397April 30, 1966 Teodora Matias de Buencamino, et al vs. Maria Dizon de Matias , et al. G.R. No. L-18867April 30, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesario Octobre, et al. G.R. Nos. L-18523-26April 30, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Balbal Sigayan, et al. G.R. No. L-18308April 30, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Luis Taruc, et al. G.R. No. L-18032April 30, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Gorgonio Serdeña G.R. No. L-17037April 30, 1966 East Asiatic Co., Ltd., etal vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-16969April 30, 1966 R. Marino Corpus vs. Miguel Cuaderno, Sr. G.R. No. L-2181April 30, 1966 Armando Esperanza vs. Andres Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-22594April 29, 1966 Cecilia Rapadaz vda. de Rapisura vs. Nicanor Nicolas, et al. G.R. No. L-22454April 29, 1966 Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service Co., et al. G.R. No. L-22220April 29, 1966 A.D. Santos, Inc. vs. Conchita vda. de Sapon G.R. No. L-22117April 29, 1966 Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc. vs. Donato Quiroz G.R. No. L-22120April 29, 1966 Iluminado Motus, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, et al. G.R. No. L-21907April 29, 1966 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., et al. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-21895April 29, 1966 In re: Agueda Go. Agueda Go vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21812April 29, 1966 Paz Torres de Conejero, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21778April 29, 1966 In re: Chan Peng Hian. Chan Peng Hian vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21762April 29, 1966 In re: Leon C. So. Leon C. So vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21695April 29, 1966 Ildefonso Agreda, et al vs. Jesus S. Rodriguez G.R. No. L-21593April 29, 1966 Raymunda S. Digran vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-21555April 29, 1966 Dorotea Balmeo vs. Crisanto Aragon, et al. G.R. No. L-21516April 29, 1966 Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. City of Butuan, et al G.R. Nos. L-21493-94April 29, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo G. Cainglet G.R. Nos. L-21477-81April 29, 1966 Francisca Viluan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-21457-21461April 29, 1966 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor G.R. No. L-21452April 29, 1966 In re: Benito Ko Bok. Benito Ko Bok vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21446April 29, 1966 In re: Lee Tit. Lee Tit vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21321April 29, 1966 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-21285April 29, 1966 Manufacturer's Distributors, Inc. vs. Yu Siu Liong G.R. No. L-21194April 29, 1966 Haw Liong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21078April 29, 1966 In re: Antonio L. Co. Antonio L. Co vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21072April 29, 1966 Bruno Torralba, et al vs. Zacarias Rosales, et al. G.R. No. L-20715April 29, 1966 In re: Wayne Chang. Wayne Chang vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20710April 29, 1966 In re: Peregrina Tan. Peregrina Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20709April 29, 1966 In re:Andronico Augusto Dy. Andronico Augusto Dy vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20510April 29, 1966 Felicidad Tolentino vs. Eulogia Bigornia Cardenas, et al. G.R. No. L-20480April 29, 1966 Clara Salazar, et al vs. Filemon Q. Ortizano G.R. No. L-20397April 29, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Enrique Maglanoc, et al. G.R. No. L-20188April 29, 1966 Peter C. Santos vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20159April 29, 1966 MiMiguel Germano, et al vs. Erneo Surita, et al. G.R. No. L-20016April 29, 1966 In re: Emmanuel Yu Nam.Emmanuel Yu Nam vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19847April 29, 1966 In re: Guadalupe Uy Sioco Nacague Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19647April 29, 1966 In re: Benedicto Tan.Benedicto Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19609April 29, 1966 Jose Negre vs. Cabahug Shipping & Co. G.R. No. L-19502April 29, 1966 In re: Pedro Co. Pedro Co vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19161April 29, 1966 Manila Railroad Co. vs. Macaria Ballesteros, et al. G.R. No. L-18570April 29, 1966 Bartolome Guirao vs. Evaristo Ver G.R. No. L-18067April 29, 1966 Pedro F. Nacionales vs. Republic of the Philippines A.C. No. 377April 29, 1966 Concepcion Bolivar vs. Abelardo M. Simbol G.R. No. L-23082April 29, 1966 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Director of The Bureau of Labor Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-19645April 29, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. MAria (MARUJA) P. vda de Yulo, et al. G.R. No. L-19581April 29, 1966 In re: Susano Sy. Susano Sy vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19576April 29, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Macondray and Co. G.R. No. L-19558April 29, 1966 La Mallorca, et al vs. Cirilo D. Mendiola G.R. No. L-19327April 29, 1966 Amado Bella Jaro vs. Elpidio Valencia G.R. No. L-15471April 29, 1966 Benjamin T. Ponce vs. Headquarters, Philippine Army Efficiency And Separation Board G.R. No. L-21752April 25, 1966 Simeon Hidalgo vs. La Tondeña, Inc, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Rebecca M. Miranda vs. Francisco Fuentes Namarco Employees And Workers' Association vs. Emiliano Tabigne, et al. Praxedes Gabriel, et al vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Pilar T. del Rosario, et al vs. Damian L. Jimenez, et al In re: Virgilio Lim Tan. Virgilio Lim Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Antonio Tiongson, et al. In re: Segunda vda. de Gamir. Consuelo G. Diaz vs. Thelma G. Sawamoto Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Java Pacific and Hoegh Lines, et al Procopio F. Eleazar vs. Auditor General Cleto Asprec vs. Victoriano Itchon, et al. Rizal Surety and Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al Vicente S. Dy Reyes, et al vs. Fructuoso Ortega, et al. American Machinery and Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al Sun Bros. Appliances, Inc. vs. Angel Al. Caluntad Central Azucacera Don Pedro vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Intestate Estate of Thomas Fallon, et al. Martiniano O. dela Cruz vs. Emilio Camon, et al. Rizal Surety and Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Martin Alagao, et al. Maximino Valdepeñas vs. Philippine of the Philippines Lexal Pure Drug Laboratories vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Chiu Hap Chiu vs. Republic of the Philippines Patricio M. Miiguel vs. Jose C. Zulueta, et al. Alfonso G. Lopez vs. Filipinas Compañia de Seguros Teodora Matias de Buencamino, et al vs. Maria Dizon de Matias , et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesario Octobre, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Balbal Sigayan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Luis Taruc, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gorgonio Serdeña East Asiatic Co., Ltd., etal vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. R. Marino Corpus vs. Miguel Cuaderno, Sr. Armando Esperanza vs. Andres Castillo, et al. Cecilia Rapadaz vda. de Rapisura vs. Nicanor Nicolas, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service Co., et al. A.D. Santos, Inc. vs. Conchita vda. de Sapon Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc. vs. Donato Quiroz Iluminado Motus, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, et al. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., et al. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. In re: Agueda Go. Agueda Go vs. Republic of the Philippines Paz Torres de Conejero, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In re: Chan Peng Hian. Chan Peng Hian vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Leon C. So. Leon C. So vs. Republic of the Philippines Ildefonso Agreda, et al vs. Jesus S. Rodriguez Raymunda S. Digran vs. Auditor General, et al. Dorotea Balmeo vs. Crisanto Aragon, et al. Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. City of Butuan, et al People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo G. Cainglet Francisca Viluan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor In re: Benito Ko Bok. Benito Ko Bok vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Lee Tit. Lee Tit vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Secretary of Labor Manufacturer's Distributors, Inc. vs. Yu Siu Liong Haw Liong vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Antonio L. Co. Antonio L. Co vs. Republic of the Philippines Bruno Torralba, et al vs. Zacarias Rosales, et al. In re: Wayne Chang. Wayne Chang vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Peregrina Tan. Peregrina Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines In re:Andronico Augusto Dy. Andronico Augusto Dy vs. Republic of the Philippines Felicidad Tolentino vs. Eulogia Bigornia Cardenas, et al. Clara Salazar, et al vs. Filemon Q. Ortizano Republic of the Philippines vs. Enrique Maglanoc, et al. Peter C. Santos vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. MiMiguel Germano, et al vs. Erneo Surita, et al. In re: Emmanuel Yu Nam.Emmanuel Yu Nam vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Guadalupe Uy Sioco Nacague Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Benedicto Tan.Benedicto Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines Jose Negre vs. Cabahug Shipping & Co. In re: Pedro Co. Pedro Co vs. Republic of the Philippines Manila Railroad Co. vs. Macaria Ballesteros, et al. Bartolome Guirao vs. Evaristo Ver Pedro F. Nacionales vs. Republic of the Philippines Concepcion Bolivar vs. Abelardo M. Simbol Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Director of The Bureau of Labor Relations, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. MAria (MARUJA) P. vda de Yulo, et al. In re: Susano Sy. Susano Sy vs. Republic of the Philippines Republic of the Philippines vs. Macondray and Co. La Mallorca, et al vs. Cirilo D. Mendiola Amado Bella Jaro vs. Elpidio Valencia Benjamin T. Ponce vs. Headquarters, Philippine Army Efficiency And Separation Board Simeon Hidalgo vs. La Tondeña, Inc, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 241             April 30, 1966

MRS. REBECCA M. MIRANDA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO FUENTES,respondent.

Office of the Solicitor General, for complainant.
F. Fuentes, for and his own behalf as respondent.

DIZON,J.:

This is a disbarment proceeding based upon a complaint filed by Mrs. Rebecca M. Miranda against Atty. Francisco A. Fuentes for alleged malpractice and unethical conduct consisting in having drafted and/or acknowledged, in his capacity as notary public, a document which reads as follows:

MUTUAL AGREEMENT

I, JOSE C. RAMILO, Filipino, of age, and with residence and postal address at Plaridel Street, City of Roxas, Philippines, hereinafter designated as PARTY OF THE FIRST PART:

CONSUELO BORRES, Filipino, of age, and with residence and postal address at Barrio Bolo, City of Roxas, Philippines, hereinafter designated as PARTY OF SECOND PART:

WITNESSETH —

That we do hereby mutually, voluntarily and freely, and without any mental reservation of any kind agree, as follows:

1.—That we are married before the Justice of the Peace of Roxas City on March 4, 1950, but thereafter did not and have not lived together as husband and wife;

2.—That no child was born out of our wedlock, nor have we acquired any property of any kind;

3.—That we renounce one from the other any kind of support or claim, real or personal, now and forever;

4.—That the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART as well as the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART have mutually agreed not to live together, and upon the signing of this Agreement, they are free to choose, as they have been, their own ways of life, both having the freedom of living with anyone, of acting in whatever fashion they like, one not being answerable to the other for the consequences thereof, nor the other having any claim or right to prosecute the first as a result of the exercise of such freedom as herein granted, but each shall be answerable unto himself therefor.

FURTHER, deponents sayeth not.1äwphï1.ñët

Done in the City of Roxas, this 4th day of November, 1953.

(Sgd.) JOSE C. RAMILO                     (Sgd.) CONSUELO BORRES

WITNESSES:

(Sgd.) GERTRUDES RAMILO                       (Sgd.) EDITH A. OROPIO.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Republic of the Philippines   )
ROXAS CITY                             ) S.S.

On this 5th day of December 1953, personally appeared before me JOSE C. RAMILO and CONSUELO BORRES, who exhibited to me their Residence Certificate No. A-2092198 issued at Roxas City on October 6, 1953, and A-2092791 issued at Roxas City on December 5th 1953, respectively, both of whom are known and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing agreement and they acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.

WITNESS my hand and seal at the City of Roxas, Philippines.

(Sgd.) F. A. Fuentes
Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 1953.

Doc. No. 548
Page No. 12
Book No. II
Series of 1953.

The case was referred by Us to the office of the Solicitor General and the latter referred it in turn to the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz for investigation. Their respective reports are now in the record (pp. 258-265 and 266-271 respectively).

The following are substantially the facts which both investigators found proven by the evidence presented by the parties:

Sometime in November 1953, Jose C. Ramilo and his wife Consuelo C. Borres approached respondent and delivered to him the document in question — apparently to have it acknowledged. After reading it respondent proceeded to ask some questions to the spouses and elicited from them the fact that they were married in March 1950 but had never lived together as husband and wife because the parents of Ramilo were against his marrying Consuelo; that respondent made efforts to reconcile them, even going to the extent of promising Ramilo a job after the election, but his efforts were all in vain obviously because at that time Consuelo was pregnant and Ramilo denied having anything to do with her pregnancy; that after making certain corrections in the document, he gave it to his typist to be put in final form; that upon perusal of the final draft, respondent erased or crossed the words "marrying or" between the words "of" and "living" which formed part of the following sentence "Both having the freedom of marrying or living with anyone" of the original document; that respondent advised the spouses that they could not, under any circumstance, re-marry without their marriage first being annulled.

Respondent did not prepare or draft the document in question but he does not deny that it was acknowledged before him in his capacity as notary public. He alleged, however, that he agreed to do so because from what the parties had told him, it was not their intention or purpose, in executing the document, to authorize each other to live maritally with some other party or lead an immoral life. The report of the Solicitor General states the following in relation to the explanations given by respondent in the course of his testimony in connection with the objectionable portions of the document:

Regarding the clause in paragraph 4 of the Mutual Agreement which reads as follows: "they are free to choose, as they have been, their own ways of life, both having the freedom of living with anyone", respondent Francisco A. Fuentes explained this to mean as follows:

"ATTY. FUENTES: The clause in paragraph No. 4 stating: "They are free to choose, as they have been, their own ways of life, both having the freedom of living with anyone". What I understand this to mean from the words of Jose Ramilo and Consuelo Borres up to the time they signed this before me, was that each one was free to continue living with their own respective families; that Ramilo would continue living with his own mother and sisters without Consuelo Borres compelling him to live with her; and on the other hand, Consuelo Borres should be allowed by Jose Ramilo to continue living with her own parents in barrio Bolo, Roxas City." (pp. 137-138, t.s.n.)

Regarding the clause "of acting in whatever fashion they like, one not being answerable to the other for the consequences thereof, nor the other having any claim or right to prosecute the first as a result of the exercise of such freedom as herein granted", also found in paragraph 4 of the Mutual Agreement, respondent Francisco A. Fuentes explained this to mean as follows:

"And the phrase in this same paragraph starting with the word "of acting in whatever fashion they like, one not being answerable to the other for the consequences thereof, nor the other having any claim or right to prosecute the first as a result of the exercise of such freedom as herein granted, but each shall be answerable unto himself therefore." From my questions of the parties on November 4, 1953, they made me understand that Consuelo Borres can continue to pursue her occupation as a masseuse in a barber shop; that when they two signed this document before me, Jose Ramilo was under the fear that the woman might compel him either to recognize the unborn body in the stomach of the woman which Ramilo in my presence and in the presence of their witnesses told me not to belong to him. As stated sometime this morning I cancelled from the original document presented to me the clause or a paragraph permitting both to marry again. At the time the parties signed this it was my understanding that each one of them wanted to be fair against the demands of the other because of what they are and of the situation of the woman. I interpreted this clause to be innocent. I had no malice when I asked them to sign. I thought that they wanted only a written statement of what was actually existing between them. For the complainant to inject into this clause any malice or any idea that under this clause Jose Ramilo or Consuelo Borres could live a life of immorality, that interpretation and that malice can only exist in the mind of one with a wicked soul because even the most simplest phrase or harmless clause can be implemented with evil by one used to a life of lustful, lascivious and licentious way of life. That is all." (pp. 138-139, t.s.n.)"

We have carefully read the document in question, particularly that portion thereof which says that "upon the signing of this Agreement, they are free to choose, as they have been, their own ways of life, both having the freedom of living with anyone, of acting in whatever fashion they like", and our impression is that the language used does not necessarily mean that the contracting parties had authorized each other to do immoral acts or to live maritally with some other man or woman, without the other having any right to complain. Of course, connecting what has been just quoted with the portion which says: "nor the other having any claim or right to prosecute the first as a result of the exercise of such freedom as herein granted", one might think that the parties really had in mind allowing each other to do anything for which he or she may be prosecuted upon the instance of the other, but whatever doubts may exist in the premises should be resolved in favor of respondent. We have come to this conclusion not only because the matter of respondent's guilt of the charge under investigation appears doubtful but also because the record fully discloses that the complaint was filed by Mrs. Miranda for purposes of revenge. In this connection, it appears that respondent is the brother of Mrs. Isabel F. Adonay; that the latter, on February 11, 1955, filed charges for immorality against complainant, Mrs. Rebecca Miranda, a public school teacher at the Central Elementary School of Panitan, Capiz; that Mrs. Miranda, through a third person, asked respondent — who was Mrs. Adonay's counsel — to have his sister drop such charges for immorality and when respondent refused or failed to do so, Mrs. Miranda filed the charge for malpractice and unethical conduct against respondent on October 4, 1955. It is therefore clear that said complaint was not filed in good faith.

In view of the foregoing, We approve the recommendation of the Solicitor General to the effect that respondent be reprimanded and admonished, as he is hereby reprimanded and admonished to be more careful in the future in the acknowledgment of documents similar in kind to the one involved in this case.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal and Sanchez, JJ., took no part.