OCCEÑA VS MARQUEZ CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. L-27396 September 30, 1974

JESUS V. OCCEÑA and SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. PAULINO S. MARQUEZ, District Judge, Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch I, respondent. I.V. BINAMIRA, Co-Executor, Estate of W.C. Ogan, Sp. Proc. No. 423, CFI of Bohol, Intervenor

LEGAL ETHICS; CANON 10.1

FACTS:

• Atty. Jesus V. Occeña and Atty. Samuel C. Occeña, are the lawyers for the estate executrix, Mrs. Necitas Ogan Occeña, and they had been representing the said executrix, defending the estate against claims and protecting the interests of the estate.

• In order to expedite the settlement of their deceased father's estate, the seven instituted heirs decided to enter into compromise with the claimants. A partial distribution of the corpus and income of the estate was made to the heirs.

• Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Payment of Attorneys' Fees, asking the court to approve payment to them of P30,000.00, as part payment of their fees for their services as counsel for the executrix and to authorize the executrix to withdraw the amount from the deposits of the estate and pay petitioners. 

• Three of the heirs moved to defer consideration of the motion until the total amounts for the executrix's fees and the attorney's fees of her counsel shall have been agreed upon by all the heirs. Five of the seven instituted heirs filed with the court a Manifestation stating that they had no objection to the release of P30,000.00 to petitioners as partial payment of attorney's fees.

• Petitioners filed a second Motion for Payment of Partial Attorneys' Fees. Action on the matter was, however, deferred upon the request of the Quijano and Arroyo Law Offices in behalf of other heirs for deferment until after all the instituted heirs shall have agreed in writing on the total attorney's fees. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the court to reconsider its deferment order and praying that payment to them of P30,000.00 be approved

• Respondent Judge issued an order fixing the total fees of petitioners. Petitioners moved to reconsider that order. respondent issued an order not only denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration but also modifying the original order by fixing petitioners' fees for the entire testate proceedings at P20,000.00.

• Petitioners contend that respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in fixing the entire attorney's fees to which they are entitled as counsel for the executrix

• Atty. I. V. Binamira, who claims to be co-executor of the Ogan estate, filed with this Court a Motion for Leave to Intervene. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution and an Opposition to "Motion for Leave to Intervene," contending that Atty. Binamira ceased to be a co-executor upon his resignation 

• Petitioners filed against intervenor a Petition for Contempt asking this Court to hold intervenor in contempt of court.

• This was followed by another Petition for Contempt, this time against one Generoso L. Pacquiao for allegedly executing a perjured affidavit to aid intervenor I. V. Binamira to escape liability for his deliberate falsehoods, which affidavit intervenor attached to his Answer to Supplemental Petition. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not intervenor I. V. Binamira has deliberately made false allegations before this Court which tend to impede or obstruct the administration of justice

HELD:

• We have carefully considered these charges and the answers of intervenor, and, on the basis of the evidence, We conclude that intervenor I. V. Binamira has deliberately made false allegations before this Court which tend to impede or obstruct the administration of justice, to wit:
• To bolster his claim that the executrix, without approval of the court, loaned P100,000.00 to the Bohol Land Transportation Company, Inc., intervenor submitted as his Answer to Supplemental Petition a so-called "Real Estate Mortgage" which he made to appear was signed by Atty. Vicente de la Serna and the executrix. The certification of the Deputy Clerk of Court shows that what intervenor claims to be a duly executed mortgage is in reality only a proposed mortgage not even signed by the parties.
• Intervenor, in his Intervenor's Opposition to Petition, also stated that the executrix, without the court's approval or of the co-executor's consent, but with petitioners' consent, loaned P100,000.00 to the Bohol Land Transportation Company, Inc. out of the estate's funds. The record shows that only P50,000.00 was loaned to the company to protect the investment of the estate therein, and that the same was granted pursuant to a joint motion signed among others, by intervenor, and approved by the court.
• To discredit petitioner Occeña and his wife, the executrix, intervenor stated in his Intervenor's Opposition to Petition that less than a month after the loan of P100,000.00 had been granted to the transportation company, petitioner Samuel C. Occeña was elected president by directors of his own choosing in the Bohol Land Transportation Company, Inc., insinuating that in effect the executrix loaned to her husband the said sum of money. The certification of the corporate secretary of the Bohol Land Transportation Company, Inc. states that petitioner Samuel C. Occeña was not the president of the company at the time, nor did he act as president or treasurer thereof, and that the president was Atty. Vicente de la Serna.
• Intervenor stated that contrary to the executrix's statement in the 1965 income tax return of the estate that an estate "income of P90,770.05 was distributed among the heirs in 1965, there was in fact no such distribution of income. The executrix's project of partition shows that there was a distribution of the 1965 income of the estate.
• To discredit petitioner and the executrix, intervenor alleged in his Intervenor's Opposition to Petition that petitioners caused to be filed with the court the executrix's verified inventory which failed to include as assets of the estate certain loans granted to petitioner Samuel C. Occeña in the sum of P4,000.00 and to the executrix various sums totalling P6,000.00. The letters written by the late W. C. Ogan to his daughter, the executrix show that the said sums totalling P10,000.00 were in reality partly given to her as a gift and partly for the payment of certain furniture and equipment.
• Intervenor stated in his Reply to Executrix's and Opposition to Executrix's Motion for Reconsideration that the executrix and petitioners refused to pay and deliver to him all that he was entitled to under the compromise agreement. The receipt dated October 29, 1965, signed by intervenor himself, shows that he acknowledged receipt from petitioner Samuel C. Occeña, lawyer for the executrix, the sum of P141,000.00 "in full payment of all claims and fees against the Estate, pursuant to the Agreement dated October 27, 1965."
• In his Reply to Executrix's Opposition and Opposition to Executrix's Motion for Reconsideration, intervenor alleged that he signed Atty. Occeña's prepared receipt without receiving payment, trusting that Atty. Occeña would pay the amount in full, but later Atty. Occeña withheld Chartered Bank Check No. 55384 for P8,000.00 drawn in favor of intervenor and P15,000.00 in cash. A receipt signed by intervenor I. V. Binamira shows that he acknowledged receipt of the check in question in the amount of P8,000-00 Anent the sum of P15,000.00 in cash, shows that intervenor, as movant, himself had alleged that "no check was issued to movant, but withdrawn amount of P15,000.00 was included in purchasing Manager's check No. 55398 for the Clerk of Court (deposit) for P75,000.00," for the said amount was voluntarily extended by intervenor as a favor and gesture of goodwill to form part of the total cash bond of P75,000.00 deposited with the Clerk of Court, as shown by a receipt signed by Atty. Samuel C. Occeña which forms part of the record in the court below.
• In his intervenor's Comments and Counter-Petition, intervenor denied the truth of petitioners' claim that intervenor had voluntarily and willingly extended the sum of P15,000.00 as a favor and gesture of goodwill to form part of the P75,000.00-deposit. In the Opposition to Motion of Executrix for Reconsideration of Order of February 19, 1966, dated April 16, 1966 intervenor had, however, admitted that "out of the goodness of his heart ... in the nature of help," he had "willingly extended as a favor and gesture of goodwill" the said sum of P15,000.00.
• To impugn the claim of petitioner Samuel C. Occeña that he stayed in Dumaguete City for almost one year to attend to the affairs of the estate, intervenor, in his intervenor's Opposition to Petition, alleged that said petitioner's stay in Dumaguete City was not to attend to the affairs of the estate, but to enable him to teach in Silliman University. The certification of the Director of the personnel office of Silliman University, is, however, to the effect that their "records do not show that Atty. Samuel C. Occeña was teaching at Silliman University or employed in any other capacity in 1963, or at any time before or after 1963."

• The foregoing are only some of the twenty-one instances cited by petitioners which clearly show that intervenor had deliberately made false allegations in his pleadings

• We find no rule of law or of ethics which would justify the conduct of a lawyer in any case, whether civil or criminal, in endeavoring by dishonest means to mislead the court, even if to do so might work to the advantage of his client. The conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. It is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to knowingly make false allegations in a judicial pleading or to misquote the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the argument of opposing counsel or the contents of a decision. Before his admission to the practice of law, he took the solemn oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, and conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to courts as well as to his clients. We find that Atty. Binamira, in having deliberately made these false allegations in his pleadings, has been recreant to his oath.