November 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions >
[A.C. No. 7893 : November 10, 2008] TERESITA ENCARNACION P. LADERAS V. ATTY. MA. ARWIN JUCO SINAGUINAN :
[A.C. No. 7893 : November 10, 2008]
TERESITA ENCARNACION P. LADERAS V. ATTY. MA. ARWIN JUCO SINAGUINAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 November 2008:
A.C. No. 7893 (Teresita Encarnacion P. Laderas v. Atty. Ma. Arwin Juco Sinaguinan)
In her affidavit-complaint, Teresita Encarnacion P. Laderas accuses respondent Atty. Ma. Arwin Juco Sinaguinan of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph l(b)[1] of the Revised Penal Code and administratively charges her with violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the administrative charge, she prays that Atty. Sinaguinan be disbarred.
We shall only delve with the administrative aspect of the complaint. The provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility allegedly violated by Atty. Sinaguinan are as follows :
In her complaint to disbar Atty. Sinaguinan, Laderas averred that she engaged the legal services of Atty. Sinaguinan sometime in January 2002 to have the three properties of her parents, Carmen Encarnacion Punzalan and Santiago Punzalan, titled to her name. She said she gave the transfer certificates of titles (TCTs) to Atty. Sinaguinan and paid her PhP 210,000 as professional fees. The titling never materialized and on November 2, 2005.she demanded the return of her money. She eventually learned that Atty. Sinaguinan became the lawyer of her brother, Anthony E. Punzalan, who is a US citizen. According to Laderas, Atty. Sinaguinan. as Anthony's lawyer, sent her a demand letter asking her to pay PhP 3 million and to vacate the property she was occupying. Laderas claimed that she was now facing an ejectment suit without benefit of any mediation or pre-trial conference.
In her Comment, Atty. Sinaguinan denied that she was ever the lawyer of Laderas as she was all along the lawyer of Anthony, for whom she sent Laderas demand letters relating to Laderas' failure to remit the rentals of Anthony's properties. Laderas was the caretaker of the properties. Atty. Sinaguinan said that Anthony had asked Laderas to deliver to her law office the TCTs and the PhP 210,000. The amount to be delivered was for expenses for the transfer of the three titles, and not her professional fee as Laderas' lawyer. The money came from the two pensions of Anthony's mother and from Anthony himself, as evidenced by a handwritten letter of Laderas.
Atty. Sinaguinan narrated that sometime in December 200 L Anthony went to her law office and consulted her about the transfer of three land titles to his name of properties that he had bought from his mother. The sale was evidenced by the Deed of Sale executed when his mother was still alive. The expenses for the transfer of the titles were computed at PhP 283.000 plus PhP 10,000 as professional fee of Atty. Sinaguinan. When Anthony instructed Laderas to remit the funds to pay for the transfer of the titles. Laderas did not, so that when his mother died, what was computed as transfer tax for the sale of the properties from Anthony's mother to Anthony in the amount of PhP 283,000 bloated to estate taxes in the amount of PhP 500,000, thus, infuriating Anthony. As a result, according to Atty. Sinaguinan, Anthony gave her a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to administer, manage, collect, and receive all rentals from his properties, as he revoked the SPA of Laderas and instructed her to file an ejectment case against Laderas, collect the unremitted rentals since 1999. and get back the antiques and silver coins of his mother that were taken by Laderas. When Laderas finally gave the titles to the property, she promised Atty. Sinaguinan that she would remit all collections until the full payment of PhP 500,000. Laderas made no such remittances.
Among the photocopied documents attached to the Comment of Atty. Sinaguinan were (1) a handwritten letter[2] of Laderas admitting that the PhP 210.000 was part of the funds intended to transfer the titles of the properties to Anthony, and these funds came from the two pensions of Anthony's mother and Anthony himself; (2) the SPA[3] in favor of Atty. Sinaguinan duly-acknowledged by Notary Public Alfred W. Hennig and Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo in Los Angeles, California, USA; (3) another SPA[4] acknowledged by Notary Patricia Valle and Vice Consul Noemi T. Diaz. Los Angeles, USA; (4) a duly notarized Affidavit[5] of Anthony swearing to the truth of Atty. Sinaguinan's version of the facts; (5) ejectment complaint[6] against Laderas and other tenants filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila; (5) handwritten letter[7] of Laderas admitting she was not a sister of Anthony; (6) decision[8] on the ejectment case in favor of Anthony; and (7) a writ of execution[9] dated February 21, 2008 against Laderas and other tenants.
In addition, we take judicial notice of the certified true copy of the Decision dated December 27, 2006 in Civil Case No. 182747,[10] an ejectment/unlawful detainer case, penned by Presiding Judge Crispin B. Bravo of the MeTC, Branch 16 in Manila. The decision found that (1) the authority of Atty. Sinaguinan in the SPA was sufficient; (2) Laderas was not a co-owner of Anthony inasmuch as her own admission that she was not a sister of Anthony contradicted her Certificate of Live Birth; and (3) the Deed of Sale executed by Anthony's mother in favor of Anthony mooted any claim of Laderas that she was a sister of Anthony and co-owner of the disputed properties. We likewise note that on appeal. Presiding Judge Noli C. Diaz of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39 in Manila affirmed the MeTC findings and declared that the MeTC decision was well supported by the facts and convincing evidence.[11]
In contrast, Laderas presented only photocopies of the TCTs in the name of Carmen Encarnacion and photocopies of an official receipt and temporary receipt of Atty. Sinaguinan acknowledging the receipt of PhP 130.000 and PhP 80,000, respectively. Together, these documents do not prove the client-lawyer relationship of complainant and respondent. The Affidavit[12] of Anthony executed in California and duly sworn to before Vice Consul Charmaine Serna-Chua stated that Anthony had met with Atty. Sinaguinan as early as December 2001, for the transfer to his name of the TCTs still in his mother's name, two years before Laderas allegedly hired Atty. Sinaguinan and paid her professional fee. Laderas handwritten letter to Anthony also showed that Laderas knew of the representation being done by Atty. Sinaguinan for Anthony for the transfer of the properties in his name. These and the MeTC decision affirmed by the RTC and the denial by the Court of Appeals of the application for a temporary restraining order for the execution of the RTC decision [13] weigh heavily against Laderas and are substantial proofs to convince this Court that Atty. Sinaguinan had not violated Canon 15. Rule 15.03 nor Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.[14] This Laderas has failed to do.
WHEREFORE, the complaint to disbar Atty. Ma.Arwin Juco Sinaguinan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 7893 (Teresita Encarnacion P. Laderas v. Atty. Ma. Arwin Juco Sinaguinan)
In her affidavit-complaint, Teresita Encarnacion P. Laderas accuses respondent Atty. Ma. Arwin Juco Sinaguinan of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph l(b)[1] of the Revised Penal Code and administratively charges her with violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the administrative charge, she prays that Atty. Sinaguinan be disbarred.
We shall only delve with the administrative aspect of the complaint. The provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility allegedly violated by Atty. Sinaguinan are as follows :
Rule 15.03-A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or properly collected or received for or from the client.
In her complaint to disbar Atty. Sinaguinan, Laderas averred that she engaged the legal services of Atty. Sinaguinan sometime in January 2002 to have the three properties of her parents, Carmen Encarnacion Punzalan and Santiago Punzalan, titled to her name. She said she gave the transfer certificates of titles (TCTs) to Atty. Sinaguinan and paid her PhP 210,000 as professional fees. The titling never materialized and on November 2, 2005.she demanded the return of her money. She eventually learned that Atty. Sinaguinan became the lawyer of her brother, Anthony E. Punzalan, who is a US citizen. According to Laderas, Atty. Sinaguinan. as Anthony's lawyer, sent her a demand letter asking her to pay PhP 3 million and to vacate the property she was occupying. Laderas claimed that she was now facing an ejectment suit without benefit of any mediation or pre-trial conference.
In her Comment, Atty. Sinaguinan denied that she was ever the lawyer of Laderas as she was all along the lawyer of Anthony, for whom she sent Laderas demand letters relating to Laderas' failure to remit the rentals of Anthony's properties. Laderas was the caretaker of the properties. Atty. Sinaguinan said that Anthony had asked Laderas to deliver to her law office the TCTs and the PhP 210,000. The amount to be delivered was for expenses for the transfer of the three titles, and not her professional fee as Laderas' lawyer. The money came from the two pensions of Anthony's mother and from Anthony himself, as evidenced by a handwritten letter of Laderas.
Atty. Sinaguinan narrated that sometime in December 200 L Anthony went to her law office and consulted her about the transfer of three land titles to his name of properties that he had bought from his mother. The sale was evidenced by the Deed of Sale executed when his mother was still alive. The expenses for the transfer of the titles were computed at PhP 283.000 plus PhP 10,000 as professional fee of Atty. Sinaguinan. When Anthony instructed Laderas to remit the funds to pay for the transfer of the titles. Laderas did not, so that when his mother died, what was computed as transfer tax for the sale of the properties from Anthony's mother to Anthony in the amount of PhP 283,000 bloated to estate taxes in the amount of PhP 500,000, thus, infuriating Anthony. As a result, according to Atty. Sinaguinan, Anthony gave her a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to administer, manage, collect, and receive all rentals from his properties, as he revoked the SPA of Laderas and instructed her to file an ejectment case against Laderas, collect the unremitted rentals since 1999. and get back the antiques and silver coins of his mother that were taken by Laderas. When Laderas finally gave the titles to the property, she promised Atty. Sinaguinan that she would remit all collections until the full payment of PhP 500,000. Laderas made no such remittances.
Among the photocopied documents attached to the Comment of Atty. Sinaguinan were (1) a handwritten letter[2] of Laderas admitting that the PhP 210.000 was part of the funds intended to transfer the titles of the properties to Anthony, and these funds came from the two pensions of Anthony's mother and Anthony himself; (2) the SPA[3] in favor of Atty. Sinaguinan duly-acknowledged by Notary Public Alfred W. Hennig and Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo in Los Angeles, California, USA; (3) another SPA[4] acknowledged by Notary Patricia Valle and Vice Consul Noemi T. Diaz. Los Angeles, USA; (4) a duly notarized Affidavit[5] of Anthony swearing to the truth of Atty. Sinaguinan's version of the facts; (5) ejectment complaint[6] against Laderas and other tenants filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila; (5) handwritten letter[7] of Laderas admitting she was not a sister of Anthony; (6) decision[8] on the ejectment case in favor of Anthony; and (7) a writ of execution[9] dated February 21, 2008 against Laderas and other tenants.
In addition, we take judicial notice of the certified true copy of the Decision dated December 27, 2006 in Civil Case No. 182747,[10] an ejectment/unlawful detainer case, penned by Presiding Judge Crispin B. Bravo of the MeTC, Branch 16 in Manila. The decision found that (1) the authority of Atty. Sinaguinan in the SPA was sufficient; (2) Laderas was not a co-owner of Anthony inasmuch as her own admission that she was not a sister of Anthony contradicted her Certificate of Live Birth; and (3) the Deed of Sale executed by Anthony's mother in favor of Anthony mooted any claim of Laderas that she was a sister of Anthony and co-owner of the disputed properties. We likewise note that on appeal. Presiding Judge Noli C. Diaz of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39 in Manila affirmed the MeTC findings and declared that the MeTC decision was well supported by the facts and convincing evidence.[11]
In contrast, Laderas presented only photocopies of the TCTs in the name of Carmen Encarnacion and photocopies of an official receipt and temporary receipt of Atty. Sinaguinan acknowledging the receipt of PhP 130.000 and PhP 80,000, respectively. Together, these documents do not prove the client-lawyer relationship of complainant and respondent. The Affidavit[12] of Anthony executed in California and duly sworn to before Vice Consul Charmaine Serna-Chua stated that Anthony had met with Atty. Sinaguinan as early as December 2001, for the transfer to his name of the TCTs still in his mother's name, two years before Laderas allegedly hired Atty. Sinaguinan and paid her professional fee. Laderas handwritten letter to Anthony also showed that Laderas knew of the representation being done by Atty. Sinaguinan for Anthony for the transfer of the properties in his name. These and the MeTC decision affirmed by the RTC and the denial by the Court of Appeals of the application for a temporary restraining order for the execution of the RTC decision [13] weigh heavily against Laderas and are substantial proofs to convince this Court that Atty. Sinaguinan had not violated Canon 15. Rule 15.03 nor Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.[14] This Laderas has failed to do.
WHEREFORE, the complaint to disbar Atty. Ma.Arwin Juco Sinaguinan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under an other obligation involving the duty to make a delivery of. or lo return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by ;t bond: or by denying having received such money, goods. or other properly.
[2] Annex ""D" of Comment with Motion to Dismiss the Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment.
[3] Annex "E." id.
[4] Annex "F." id.
[5] Annex "D." id.
[6] Annex "G." id.
[7] Annex "I." id.
[8] Annex "N." id.
[9] Annex "O." id.
[10] Annex "M." id.
[11] Annex "N." id.
[12] Annex "D." id.
[13] Annex "P." id.
[14] Angeles v. Figueroa. A.C. No. 5050. September 20. 2005. 470 SCRA 4. 186. 195: citing Gaviola v. Salcedo. A.C. No. 3037. May 20, 2004. 428 SCRA 563.
