EN BANC

[Adm. Case No. 745 . January 22, 1940.]

IRINEA DE LOS SANTOS , complainant, vs . CELESTINO SAGALONGOS ,

respondent.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Solicitor-General Concepcion for

complainant.
The respondent in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS

1. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW; DISBARMENT; VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE. —

Respondent C. S. is disbarred from the practice of law in the Philippines, because in
deliberately and maliciously withholding from the court certain facts of which he had
full knowledge in an attempt to unjustly and unlawfully deprive others of their legitimate
rights, he acted with betrayal to the court of which he is an o cer, and sought thereby
to pervert the administration of justice, in gross violation of his oath of office.

DECISION

MORAN , J : p

An action for malpractice instituted by Irinea de los Santos against attorney

Celestino Sagalongos.
The basic facts of the case are as follows:
The deceased, Gervasio Baetiong, survived by Vicenta Baetiong, a daughter by
his rst marriage, and by the complainant herein, Irinea de los Santos, his widow by
second marriage and their three children, Celestina, Aurelia, Concordia and Amando, all
surnamed Baetiong, left as his sole property a tract of land of about three and one-half
hectares, situated in the municipality of Caloocan, Rizal, with transfer certi cate of title
No. 21998, issued in the name of Gervasio Baetiong, "casado con Irinea de los Santos."
In the cadastral proceedings in said municipality, Irinea de los Santos and Vicenta
Baetiong both claimed the property, and upon the advice of certain friends who
intervened with a view to an amicable settlement of the con icting claims, they agreed
to divide the same. To this erect, respondent herein, Celestino Sagalongos, prepared in
pencil writing an agreement of the following tenor:
"On this 17th day of September, 1984, we Irinea de los Santos, the
surviving second wife of the deceased Gervasio Baetiong, and Vicenta Baetiong
the only surviving daughter of said deceased Gervasio Baetiong hereby agree that
the herein described property shall be divided as follows:
"1. Ha. more or less to be inscribed in the name of Vicenta Baetiong and
the rest
"In the name of Irinea de los Santos.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "Signed:

IRINEA DE LOS SANTOS VICENTA BAETIONG

Her mark. Her mark."

The clerk of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, who was then commissioned to
receive the evidence in the cadastral case, refused to accept and act upon the
agreement until it was written in ink. For some reason or another, the agreement was
never reduced to writing in the form required by the commissioner, and was ultimately
abandoned. About two weeks later, respondent Celestino Sagalongos, as counsel for
Vicenta Baetiong, led a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, for the summary
distribution of the estate of the late Gervasio Baetiong, alleging therein, among others,
that the deceased "was survived by his only legitimate daughter Vicenta Baetiong." The
petition made absolutely no reference to Irinea de los Santos and her children with the
deceased and prayed that "Vicenta Baetiong be declared . . . the sole legitimate heir of
the deceased Gervasio Baetiong." At the hearing of the petition, respondent introduced
evidence tending to prove not, only the aforementioned allegation, but also that the
name of Irinea de los Santos was included in the transfer certi cate of title by mistake.
On the strength of the evidence thus adduced, the court, in its order of October 30,
1934, adjudged Vicenta Baetiong the sole heir of the deceased and, accordingly,
adjudicated the property in her favor "sin perjuicio de los derechos de algun heredero o
acreedor que haya sido privado de la herencia dentro de las limitaciones senaladas por
la ley." Thereafter, respondent caused the transfer certificate of title to be cancelled and
a new one issued in the name of Vicenta Baetiong. And, upon his advice, Vicenta
Baetiong thereafter executed a deed of conveyance of said property in favor of one
Feliciano Cleofas. Respondent personally led this deed of conveyance with the o ce
of the register of deeds and secured the cancellation of the transfer certi cate of title
issued in the name of Vicenta Baetiong and the issuance of a new one in the name of
Feliciano Cleofas. Complainant herein, Irinea de los Santos, learned of the summary
proceedings instituted by Vicenta Baetiong and of the result thereof. On or about
January 28, 1935, she led a motion praying that the court's order of October 30, 1934,
be set aside. After the hearing of this motion, the court revoked the order of October
30, 1934, and instructed Irinea de los Santos to propose the name of the person to be
appointed as administrator of the estate of the deceased. Respondent, as counsel for
Vicenta Baetiong, did not appeal from this order. Later, the conveyance made of the
property in favor of Feliciano Cleofas was annulled by the Court of Appeals in a decision
wherein he was adjudged to be a purchaser in bad faith.
The above facts show positively that the respondent, at the time of ling the
petition for the summary distribution of the estate of the deceased, Gervasio Baetiong,
and at the hearing thereof, knew that Vicenta Baetiong was not the only legitimate heir
of the deceased, and that Irinea de los Santos and her three children were also heirs of
said deceased; but he deliberately withheld this fact for the purpose of perverting the
administration of justice to his bene t and that of his client and to the injury of said
Irinea de los Santos and her three children.
Respondent claims that when Vicenta Baetiong entrusted her case to him, with
the end in view of presenting a petition for the summary distribution of the property in
question, she made no mention to him of Irinea de los Santos; that he merely ruled upon
her representation that she was the only heir of the deceased; and that he did not
inquire from her as to whether the deceased had been survived by some other heirs.
This assertion is utterly incredible. It is inconceivable that, noticing, as he admitted, that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the title to the property was in the name of the deceased, "casado con Irinea de los
Santos," he would not have inquired from Vicenta Baetiong whether or not her father
had really married Irinea de los Santos. When he prepared the agreement two weeks
before then, he knew the claim of Irinea de los Santos as surviving second wife of the
deceased. In fact, he even threatened Irinea de los Santos, at the time the agreement
was being prepared, that, unless she settled her differences with Vicenta Baetiong in an
amicable way, she would have a trouble in the form of a litigation. These circumstances
are conclusive as to his full knowledge of the status of Irinea de los Santos and of her
lawful claim to the property.
Besides, subsequent circumstances disclose an attitude of mind on the part of
the respondent clearly indicative of his consciousness of guilt. At the hearing of the
motion of the complainant herein for the reconsideration of the order adjudicating the
property in favor of Vicenta Baetiong, respondent did not even attempt to present any
evidence to contradict the evidence for the complainant, which he should if he really
believed the facts to be as alleged by him in the petition, and simply limited himself to
contending, against the explicit provisions of the law, that the court had no jurisdiction
to set aside its order. That he knew that his contention was untenable is shown by the
fact that he did not appeal from the order overruling his contention and setting aside
the order of October 30, 1934. In fact, he impliedly acquiesced thereto by permitting
the appointment of Irinea de los Santos as administratrix of the estate of the deceased,
allowing her to discharge her duties as such, and submitting a counter-project of
partition wherein he alleged that Gervasio Baetiong "was survived by Vicenta Baetiong,
his only daughter from his rst marriage with the deceased, Lorenza de la Cruz, by
Irinea de los Santos, his second wife and his three children from the latter, to wit:
Cornelia, Concordia and Amando, all surnamed Baetiong."
Respondent, on his admission to the bar, took the following oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false,
groundless, or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
man for money or malice, but will conduct myself in the o ce of a lawyer within
the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients. So help me God."
In deliberately and maliciously withholding from the court certain facts of which
he had full knowledge in an attempt to unjustly and unlawfully deprive other of their
legitimate rights, he acted with betrayal to the court of which he is an o cer, and
sought thereby to pervert the administration of justice, in gross violation of his oath of
office.
Wherefore, respondent, Calestino Sagalongos, is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law in the Philippines, with costs against him.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com