A.C. No. 8261. March 11, 2015.

*
 
JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN and ROBERT C. TORRES,
complainants, vs. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR.,
ATTY. RENATO G. CUNANAN, ATTY. DANIEL F.
VICTORIO, JR., and ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA,
respondents.

A.C. No. 8725. March 11, 2015.*

 
JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN and ROBERT C. TORRES,
complainants, vs. ATTY. CONSTANTE P. CALUYA, JR.
and ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA, respondents.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Well­entrenched in this jurisdiction is

the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

255

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 255

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

either in his professional or private capacity.—Well­

entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be
disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or
private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor,
or whether his conduct renders him unworthy to continue as an
officer of the Court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the
dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Lawyers are
similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code not
to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
conduct. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of
Professional Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary
sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, as amended.
Public Officers; Ministerial Duties; A purely ministerial act or
duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of
facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.—
Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree) enumerates the general duties of the Register of Deeds, as
follows: Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds.—x x x
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately
register an instrument presented for registration dealing with
real or personal property which complies with all the requisites
for registration. He shall see to it that said instrument bears the
proper documentary science stamps and that the same are
properly canceled. If the instrument is not registrable, he shall
forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of
such denial in writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and
advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with
Section 117 of this Decree. (Emphasis supplied) The
aforementioned duty of the Register of Deeds is ministerial in
nature. A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without
regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety
or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a
public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the
duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not
ministerial. The duty is min­

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

isterial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise

of official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.
Conspiracy; Although it is not necessary to prove a formal
agreement in order to establish conspiracy because conspiracy may
be inferred from the circumstances attending the commission of an
act, it is nonetheless essential that conspiracy be established by
clear and convincing evidence.—Although it is not necessary to
prove a formal agreement in order to establish conspiracy because
conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances attending the
commission of an act, it is nonetheless essential that conspiracy
be established by clear and convincing evidence. The
complainants failed in this regard. Outside of their bare
assertions that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. had
conspired with each other in order to cause the dismissal of the
complaint and then discharge of the annotations, they presented
no evidence to support their allegation of conspiracy. On the
contrary, the records indicated their own active participation in
arriving at the amicable settlement with the defendants in Civil
Case No. Q­07­59598. Hence, they could not now turn their backs
on the amicable settlement that they had themselves entered into.
Attorney­Client Relationship; The Law Profession did not
burden its members with the responsibility of indefinite service to
the clients; hence, the rendition of professional services depends on
the agreement between the attorney and the client.—Atty. Victorio,
Jr. could not be faulted for the perceived inattention to any other
matters subsequent to the termination of Civil Case No. Q­07­
59598. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated between them at
any time during the engagement, the complainants had no right
to assume that Atty. Victorio, Jr.’s legal representation was
indefinite as to extend to his representation of them in the LRA.
The Law Profession did not burden its members with the
responsibility of indefinite service to the clients; hence, the
rendition of professional services depends on the agreement
between the attorney and the client. Atty. Victorio, Jr.’s alleged
failure to respond to the complainants’ calls or visits, or to provide
them with his whereabouts to enable them to have access to him
despite the termination of his engagement in Civil Case No. Q­07­
59598 did not equate to abandonment without the credible
showing that he continued to come under the professional
obligation towards them after the termination of Civil Case No. Q­
07­59598.

257

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 257

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
BERSAMIN, J.:
 
In this consolidated administrative case, complainants
Jessie T. Campugan and Robert C. Torres seek the
disbarment of respondents Atty. Federico S. Tolentino, Jr.,
Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., Atty. Renata G. Cunanan,
Atty. Elbert T. Quilala and Atty. Constante P. Caluya, Jr.
for allegedly falsifying a court order that became the basis
for the cancellation of their annotation of the notice of
adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens in the Registry
of Deeds in Quezon City.
 
Antecedents
 
Atty. Victorio, Jr. had replaced Atty. Edgardo Abad as
counsel of the complainants in a civil action they brought to
seek the annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. N­290546 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in
the first week of January 2007 in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q­07­59598). They
impleaded as defendants Ramon and Josefina Ricafort,
Juliet Vargas and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
They caused to be annotated on TCT No. N­290546 their
affidavit of adverse claim, as well as the notice of lis
pendens.1 Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was the counsel of defendant
Ramon and Josefina Ricafort.
In their sworn complaint for disbarment dated April 23,
2009 (later docketed as A.C. No. 8261),2 the complainants
narrated that as the surviving children of the late Spouses
Antonio and Nemesia Torres, they inherited upon the
deaths of their parents a residential lot located at No. 251
Boni Serrano Street, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City
registered un­

_______________

1  Rollo (A.C. No. 8261), p. 7.

2  Id., at pp. 1­4.

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

der Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT­

64333(35652) of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City;3 that
on August 24, 2006, they discovered that TCT No. RT­
64333(35652) had been unlawfully cancelled and replaced
by TCT No. N­290546 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City under the names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort;4 and
that, accordingly, they immediately caused the annotation
of their affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. N­290546.
It appears that the parties entered into an amicable
settlement during the pendency of Civil Case No. Q­07­
59598 in order to end their dispute,5 whereby the
59598 in order to end their dispute,5 whereby the
complainants agreed to sell the property and the proceeds
thereof would be equally divided between the parties, and
the complaint and counterclaim would be withdrawn
respectively by the complainants (as the plaintiffs) and the
defendants. Pursuant to the terms of the amicable
settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed a Motion to Withdraw
Complaint dated February 26, 2008,6 which the RTC
granted in its order dated May 16, 2008 upon noting the
defendants’ lack of objection thereto and the defendants’
willingness to similarly withdraw their counterclaim.7
The complainants alleged that from the time of the
issuance by the RTC of the order dated May 16, 2008, they
could no longer locate or contact Atty. Victorio, Jr. despite
making several phone calls and visits to his office; that
they found out upon verification at the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City that new annotations were made on TCT No.
N­290546, specifically: (1) the annotation of the letter­
request appearing to be filed by Atty. Tolentino, Jr.8
seeking the cancellation of the affidavit of adverse claim
and the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. N­
290546; and (2) the annotation of the decision

_______________

3  Id., at p. 5.
4  Id., at p. 6.
5  Id., at pp. 24­25.
6  Id., at pp. 8­9.
7  Id., at p. 10.
8  Id., at p. 7.

259

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 259

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

dated May 16, 2008 rendered in Civil Case No. Q­07­

59598 by the RTC, Branch 95, in Quezon City, granting the
complainants’ Motion to Withdraw Complaint;9 and that a
copy of the letter­ request dated June 30, 2008 addressed to
Atty. Quilala, Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City, disclosed
that it was defendant Ramon Ricafort who had signed the
letter.
Feeling aggrieved by their discovery, the complainants
filed an appeal en consulta with the Land Registration
Authority (LRA), docketed as Consulta No. 4707, assailing
the unlawful cancellation of their notice of adverse claim
and their notice of lis pendens under primary entries PE­
2742 and PE­3828­9, respectively. The LRA set Consulta
No. 4707 for hearing on March 30, 2009, and directed the
parties to submit their respective memoranda and/or
supporting documents on or before such scheduled
hearing.10 However, the records do not disclose whether
Consulta No. 4707 was already resolved, or remained
pending at the LRA.
Unable to receive any response or assistance from Atty.
Victorio, Jr. despite their having paid him for his
professional services, the complainants felt that said
counsel had abandoned their case. They submitted that the
cancellation of their notice of adverse claim and their notice
of lis pendens without a court order specifically allowing
such cancellation resulted from the connivance and
conspiracy between Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino,
Jr., and from the taking advantage of their positions as
officials in the Registry of Deeds by respondents Atty.
Quilala, the Chief Registrar, and Atty. Cunanan, the acting
Registrar and signatory of the new annotations. Thus, they
claimed to be thereby prejudiced.
On July 6, 2009, the Court required the respondents to
comment on the verified complaint.11

_______________

9   Id.
10  Id., at p. 12.
11  Id., at p. 13.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

Atty. Victorio, Jr. asserted in his Comment dated

August 17, 200912 that complainant Robert Torres had
been actively involved in the proceedings in Civil Case No.
Q­07­59598, which included the mediation process; that the
complainants, after having aggressively participated in the
drafting of the amicable settlement, could not now claim
that they had been deceived into entering the agreement in
the same way that they could not feign ignorance of the
conditions contained therein; that he did not commit any
abandonment as alleged, but had performed in good faith
his duties as the counsel for the complainants in Civil Case
No. Q­07­59598; that he should not be held responsible for
their representation in other proceedings, such as that
before the LRA, which required a separate engagement;
and that the only payment he had received from the
complainants were those for his appearance fees of
P1,000.00 for every hearing in the RTC.
In his Comment dated August 24, 2009,13 Atty.
Tolentino, Jr. refuted the charge of conspiracy, stressing
that he was not acquainted with the other respondents,
except Atty. Victorio, Jr. whom he had met during the
hearings in Civil Case No. Q­07­59598; that although he
had notarized the letter­request dated June 30, 2008 of
Ramon Ricafort to the Register of Deeds, he had no
knowledge about how said letter­request had been disposed
of by the Register of Deeds; and that the present complaint
was the second disbarment case filed by the complainants
against him with no other motive except to harass and
intimidate him.
Atty. Quilala stated in his Comment dated September 1,
200914 that it was Atty. Caluya, Jr., another Deputy
Register of Deeds, who was the actual signing authority of
the annotations that resulted in the cancellation of the
affidavit of adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens on
TCT No. N­290546; that the

_______________

12  Id., at pp. 17­18.

13  Id., at pp. 14­15.
14  Id., at pp. 28­30.

261

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 261

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

cancellation of the annotations was undertaken in the

regular course of official duty and in the exercise of the
ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds; that no
irregularity occurred or was performed in the cancellation
of the annotations; and that the Register of Deeds was
impleaded in Civil Case No. Q­07­59598 only as a nominal
party, thereby discounting any involvement in the
proceedings in the case.
Atty. Cunanan did not file any comment.15
As the result of Atty. Quilala’s allegation in his
Comment in A.C. No. 8261 that it had been Atty. Caluya,
Jr.’s signature that appeared below the cancelled entries,
the complainants filed another sworn disbarment
complaint dated August 26, 2010 alleging that Atty.
Caluya, Jr. had forged the signature of Atty. Cunanan.16
This disbarment complaint was docketed as A.C. No. 8725,
and was later on consolidated with A.C. No. 826117 because
the complaints involved the same parties and rested on
similar allegations against the respondents.
Atty. Quilala filed his Comment in A.C. No. 8725 to belie
the allegation of forgery and to reiterate the arguments he
had made in A.C. No. 8261.18 On his part, Atty. Caluya, Jr.
manifested that he adopted Atty. Quilala’s Comment.19
 
Ruling
 
We dismiss the complaints for disbarment for being
bereft of merit.
Well­entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a
lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either
in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether
his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty,

_______________

15  Id., at p. 52.
16  Rollo (A.C. No. 8725), pp. 1­3.
17  Rollo (A.C. No. 8261), p. 53.
18  Rollo (A.C. No. 8725), pp. 14­18.
19  Id., at pp. 49­50.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campugan vs. Tolentino, Jr.

probity, and good demeanor, or whether his conduct

renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the
Court.20 Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates all lawyers to