Ac 7054 Complainant: Fernandez Facts: Palacios had a property He allegedly executed a deed of donation in favor of Fernandez which the

e former later on nullified When Palacio learned that Fernandez was selling the property in question and was flaunting a deed of donation allegedly falsified The Deed of donation possessed by Fernandez was made to be registered under his name (TCT). TCT of Palacios was cancelled Palacios claims that deed of sale was falsified, that the signature was forged; that it was done to cheat the government (to avoid paying capital gains tax) Fernandez said the transfer of title was valid Palacios hired the services of Atty VIllalon Fernandez filed disbarment against counsel of Palacios Basis: rule 10.01 (10.03, 10.02, 7.02, 1.01) 1. That Atty Villalon suppressed his knowledge regarding the existence of deed of absolute sale 2. Deceived the court in making use the spurious deed of donation 3. Committed misrepresentation (in verifying whether a deed of absolute sale exists, he wrote that there is a pending case regarding the document) 4. Refused to receive complainants Answer with compulsory counterclaim 5. Induced witness Heredia to sign a false affidavit 6. Submitted the deed of donation for NBIs signature test but did not do the same for deed of absolute sale IBP: There is no duty on part of Villalon to disclose his knowledge of the existence of an absolute deed of sale (under law or rules of court, not duty bound); since it is an evidence and a matter of defense for the opposing party Only operative facts not evidentiary facts are needed to be included in the complaint No suppression of evidence committed Not required to divulge his knowledge about the existence of absolute deed of sale since this obtainable through some other source if inquired with diligence (Notarial section) Respondent is limited by his clients cause of action That no consideration was given for the deed of absolute sale and is consequently arguing that the deed is void (contention of Fernandez) In the complaint of misrepresentation, there is no evil intent on part of Atty Villalon saying that there is a pending case, in fact a civil case was instituted the next day. Respondent: Atty Villalon

For accusation regarding non-receipt of answer with compulsary counterclaim, it was not substantiated.

SC: (grave abuse of discretion?) in dismissal of disbarment case and not considering respondent induced Heredia to issue a false affidavit Do not constitute grounds for disbarment Lawyer has duty to be truthful, but not required to build case for his clients opponent; it is immaterial to the goal of the client of Villalon to recover the property Since the existence of absolute deed of sale is a matter of defense for the other party, counsel need not the divulge his knowledge about this Furthermore, Absolute deed of sale was not registered, it cannot be a basis for transfer of title Regarding retraction of Heredia, Fernandez cannot dispute this anymore since he passed up his chance when had was asked to cross examine witness retraction has no particular relevance.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of the same in any court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.