3 - Cuenco V. Fernan 36405x

Cuenco v. Fernan 158 SCRA 29, 17 February 1988 Facts: Vito Borromeo died without any forced heirs, but left behind properties. However, a petition for probate of a one-page document – purportedly the last will and testament of Vito – was filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. In the said will, Fortunato, Tomas, and Amelia (all surnamed) Borromeo were named heirs to the late Vito’s property. The court declared the document to be a forgery (it was judged with finality by the SC). Intestacy proceedings then began. 9 persons were named as the heirs to Vito’s property. During the proceedings, 5 cases/petitions were filed before the SC. It was the Third Division, under Justice Gutierrez, who handled the 5 cases which it consolidated into 1. Atty. Cuenco, petition on the case at bar, asked for an extension for the filing of a motion for reconsideration (MOR) on Justice Gutierrez’ decision. This was granted by the Third Division but under the condition that it wouldn’t allow another extension. The Court en banc dismissed in Cuenco’s MOR for lack of merit. Now, he petitions before the SC for the disbarment of Justice Marcelo Fernan on the following grounds: 1. Fernan appeared as counsel for Forunato, Tomas, and Amelia during the CFI trial and continues to represent them despite being appointed as a Justice of the SC. 2. Fernan pushed to assign the Borromeo case into his Branch (the Third Branch) to influence the decision of the proceedings. 3. Fernan operated his office in Cebu to create fake heirs of Borromeo. 4. Fernan abolished and crippled the function of the CA knowing that the case re: Cuenco’s atty’s fees are pending before the CA. 5. Fernan’s determination to collect large sums of money prompted him to influence the Third Branch’s decision re: Cuenco’s complaint. 6. Fernan violated his oath of office as lawyer. Issue: Whether or not Cuenco’s charges against Justice Fernan have merit.

Held: NO. Cuenco’s charges are compeletely unfounded based on the facts on record. 1. Fernan’s involvement in the case already ceased even prior to his appointment to the SC. 2. The case was assignede for study Justice Gutierrez, even prior to Justice Fernan’s appointment to the Court. After the 1987 Consti took effect, the Court was re-organized through an internal procedure thus asg Justice Fernan and Gutierrez into the Third Branch. Justice Fernan even inhibited from the deliberations on the Borromeo case. Likewise, he did not take part in the resolution of it.

3. SC: “The Court is unable to see how Mr. Justice Fernan, whose involvement in the Vito Borromeo estate proceedings began on 7 August 1965 and ended on 19 February 1968, could have had any control or influence over the actions of the instituted heirs (Fortunate, Tomas and Amelia Borromeo) either in 1952 when Special Proceedings 916-R for probate of the will was, or in 1954 when said heirs claimed rights of ownership over the aforementioned thirteen (13) parcels of land and sought to exclude them from the estate of the decedent.” 4. SC: “It is evident that the "legitimate functions" of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 08093 — where complainant Cuenco has filed a claim for payment of attorney's fees — have not been abolished and crippled" by the mere fact that the maximum amounts, expressed in a percentage of the market value of the distributive shares received from the estate, of attorney's fees had been determined and set by this Court.” 5. SC: “[C]omplainant Cuenco's complaint in A.M. No. R-593-RTJ was dismissed by a Resolution of the Court en banc, not of the Third Division as Cuenco apparently believes. In any case, the of the Third Division of the Court expressly reject complainant Cuenco's assertion or insinuation that they were unduly influenced by any consideration other than the simple lack of merit of the complaint in A.M. No. R-593-RTJ.” 6. SC: “There is no in the record, other than the undocumented assertions of complainant Cuenco, that would suggest that Mr. Justice Fernan has violated his oath of office as a lawyer either during the time when he was collaborating counsel for Tomas and Amelia Borromeo in the proceedings below or thereafter, and since ing this Court” The Court added that there is another reason why the disbarment complaint was dismissed: “ of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution, be of the Philippine Bar and may be removed from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution).” Same situation applies to: the Ombudsman and deputies, majority of COMELEC , COA , who are not As – all of whom are constitutionally required to be lawyers. CHARGES DISMISSED.