January 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > January 2008 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 7662 (CBD 05-1589) : January 16, 2008] MA. ANTONETTE CALDERON V. ATTY. JOSE ECHAGUE:
[A.C. No. 7662 (CBD 05-1589) : January 16, 2008]
MA. ANTONETTE CALDERON V. ATTY. JOSE ECHAGUE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 16 January 2008:
"A.C. No. 7662 (CBD 05-1589) (Ma. Antonette Calderon v. Atty. Jose Echague). � A Complaint for disbarment was filed directly before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on 19 October 2005 against respondent Atty. Jose Echague.
Complaint Ma. Antonette Calderon engaged the legal services of respondent sometime in 1997 to handle a case before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) entitled, In re: Petition for Review of the Order of the Regional Director Eugenio Bernardo of DAR- Region IV dated September 3, 1997 Re: Application of Felicitas Depusoy and Ma. Antonette Calderon as preferred beneficiaries pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 6657 (DAR Case). According to the Complaint respondent accepted the DAR Case, collected sums of money therefor and yet never performed his duty as a lawyer diligently. As a result, complainant lost the case as evinced by DAR Order dated 12 July 2002. Despite receipt of the said order, respondent did not do any remedial action to protect the legal interest of complainant.
An examination of the DAR Order shows that the case was filed by Braulio Guyagon and Wilfredo Guyagon as petitioners. Oppositors-appellees were herein complainant and a certain Felicitas Depusoy.
Essentially, the dispute involved a 2.5586-hectares agricultural land located in Naic, Cavite. The land was the excess area of the retention limit of co-owners Teresita Tirona and Jose Calderon, who had five (5) hectares each. Eventually, the 2.5586- hectare excess land was awarded to Braulio and Wilfredo Guyagon as farmer-beneficiaries through the recommendation of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Naic, Cavite. Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) were registered in the names of the farmer-beneficiaries on 26 May 1995.
Teresita Tirona filed a letter of protest on 6 February 1996 before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Cavite. On 27 February 1996, Tirona filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition for cancellation of the CLOA previously issued to the Guyagons on the ground that their two (2) children,, Felicitas Depusoy and Ma. Antonette Calderon, were their preferred beneficiaries pursuant to Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 and that the CLOA was fraudulently issued to the Guyagons. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator dismissed the petition for prematurity and for lack of jurisdiction. However, Regional Director Eugenio Bernardo of DAR-Region IV subsequently issued an Order granting the application of complainant and Depusoy as preferred beneficiaries of the subject landholdings and perpetually disqualifying the Guyagons from being farmer-beneficiaries on the ground of abandonment and for culpably selling the CLOA within the prohibitive period of ten years. The motion for reconsideration filed by the Guyagons was denied. The second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Subsequently, the DAR Secretary reversed the ruling on appeal, thus declaring the Guyagons as qualified farmer-beneficiaries of the subject landholdings. Complainant and Depusoy were not considered as qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law because, although they were the children of the landowner, they nevertheless failed to substantiate their claim that they were actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm.
The DAR Order shows that the DAR Case was initially resolved by the lower adjudicative body in favor or complainant and Depusoy and was eventually reversed by the Office of the DAR Secretary. The complaint filed in the instant administrative proceedings does not indicated at what stage of the case respondent represented complaint as counsel. In any case, the DAR Order on its face does not suggest that there was negligence on the part of the counsel in said proceeding.
Moreover, the records of this instant administrative complaint show that no pleading or any order from the CBD has actually been received by respondent. Respondent may not be even aware of the instant adminstrative proceeding against him and, consequently, may not have been given his day in court. As stated in Adamson and Adamson, Inc. v. Amores,[1] "[w]hile administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements they are bound law and practice to observe the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them. However, the standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the element of fairness is not ignored. Hence, there is no denial of due process where records show that hearings were held with prior notice to adverse parties. But even in the absence of previous notice, there is no denial of procedural due process as long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard."[2] In the absence of proof that respondent has received any of the pleadings and notices of the administrative proceedings pending against him before the CBD, it cannot be assumed that he was given opportunity to be heard.
Nevertheless, this case will no longer have to be remanded to the CBD because, even in the absence of respondent's evidence, there is no prima facie evidence showing that respondent committed acts violating his duties as a member of the bar which would warrant is disbarment. The burden in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant to establish by convincing proof the alleged misconduct of respondent.[3] In the case at bar, complainant failed to discharge such burden.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the case against respondent is hereby DISMISSED.
Velasco, Jr., J., on leave.
"A.C. No. 7662 (CBD 05-1589) (Ma. Antonette Calderon v. Atty. Jose Echague). � A Complaint for disbarment was filed directly before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on 19 October 2005 against respondent Atty. Jose Echague.
Complaint Ma. Antonette Calderon engaged the legal services of respondent sometime in 1997 to handle a case before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) entitled, In re: Petition for Review of the Order of the Regional Director Eugenio Bernardo of DAR- Region IV dated September 3, 1997 Re: Application of Felicitas Depusoy and Ma. Antonette Calderon as preferred beneficiaries pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 6657 (DAR Case). According to the Complaint respondent accepted the DAR Case, collected sums of money therefor and yet never performed his duty as a lawyer diligently. As a result, complainant lost the case as evinced by DAR Order dated 12 July 2002. Despite receipt of the said order, respondent did not do any remedial action to protect the legal interest of complainant.
An examination of the DAR Order shows that the case was filed by Braulio Guyagon and Wilfredo Guyagon as petitioners. Oppositors-appellees were herein complainant and a certain Felicitas Depusoy.
Essentially, the dispute involved a 2.5586-hectares agricultural land located in Naic, Cavite. The land was the excess area of the retention limit of co-owners Teresita Tirona and Jose Calderon, who had five (5) hectares each. Eventually, the 2.5586- hectare excess land was awarded to Braulio and Wilfredo Guyagon as farmer-beneficiaries through the recommendation of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Naic, Cavite. Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) were registered in the names of the farmer-beneficiaries on 26 May 1995.
Teresita Tirona filed a letter of protest on 6 February 1996 before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Cavite. On 27 February 1996, Tirona filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition for cancellation of the CLOA previously issued to the Guyagons on the ground that their two (2) children,, Felicitas Depusoy and Ma. Antonette Calderon, were their preferred beneficiaries pursuant to Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 and that the CLOA was fraudulently issued to the Guyagons. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator dismissed the petition for prematurity and for lack of jurisdiction. However, Regional Director Eugenio Bernardo of DAR-Region IV subsequently issued an Order granting the application of complainant and Depusoy as preferred beneficiaries of the subject landholdings and perpetually disqualifying the Guyagons from being farmer-beneficiaries on the ground of abandonment and for culpably selling the CLOA within the prohibitive period of ten years. The motion for reconsideration filed by the Guyagons was denied. The second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Subsequently, the DAR Secretary reversed the ruling on appeal, thus declaring the Guyagons as qualified farmer-beneficiaries of the subject landholdings. Complainant and Depusoy were not considered as qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law because, although they were the children of the landowner, they nevertheless failed to substantiate their claim that they were actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm.
The DAR Order shows that the DAR Case was initially resolved by the lower adjudicative body in favor or complainant and Depusoy and was eventually reversed by the Office of the DAR Secretary. The complaint filed in the instant administrative proceedings does not indicated at what stage of the case respondent represented complaint as counsel. In any case, the DAR Order on its face does not suggest that there was negligence on the part of the counsel in said proceeding.
Moreover, the records of this instant administrative complaint show that no pleading or any order from the CBD has actually been received by respondent. Respondent may not be even aware of the instant adminstrative proceeding against him and, consequently, may not have been given his day in court. As stated in Adamson and Adamson, Inc. v. Amores,[1] "[w]hile administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements they are bound law and practice to observe the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them. However, the standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the element of fairness is not ignored. Hence, there is no denial of due process where records show that hearings were held with prior notice to adverse parties. But even in the absence of previous notice, there is no denial of procedural due process as long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard."[2] In the absence of proof that respondent has received any of the pleadings and notices of the administrative proceedings pending against him before the CBD, it cannot be assumed that he was given opportunity to be heard.
Nevertheless, this case will no longer have to be remanded to the CBD because, even in the absence of respondent's evidence, there is no prima facie evidence showing that respondent committed acts violating his duties as a member of the bar which would warrant is disbarment. The burden in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant to establish by convincing proof the alleged misconduct of respondent.[3] In the case at bar, complainant failed to discharge such burden.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the case against respondent is hereby DISMISSED.
Velasco, Jr., J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] No. L-58292, 23 July 1987, 152 SCRA 237, 250 cited in Busuego v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95326 March 1999.
[2] Emphasis supplied.
[3] Agbayani v. Agtang, Adm. Case No. 1445, 5 October 1976, 73 SCRA 283.
