March 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.C. No. 8671 : March 16, 2011]
CHARITO D. ROBLES AND AMPARO D. ROBLES. V. ATTY. RODOLFO D. ROBLES
"A.C. No. 8671 -(Charito D. Robles and Amparo D. Robles. v. Atty. Rodolfo D. Robles). - Complainants Charito D. Robles (Charito) and Amparo D. Robles are the siblings of respondent Atty. Rodolfo D. Robles (Atty. Robles). They have five other siblings, namely: Claro D. Robles, Jr., Frida D. Robles-Evangelista, Manuel D. Robles, Marivic D. Robles-Lopez and Rowena 'Rowie' D. Robles (deceased).
Their father, Claro R. Robles, Sr. died on February 18, 1999 while their mother, Amparo R. Dia died on July 10, 1999.
After 11 years more or less from the death of their parents, complainants filed on July 6, 2010 this case for disbarment against their brother, Atty. Robles. Complainants alleged that:
- Respondent had titled to himself a parcel of land located at Talisay, Tiaong, Quezon, measuring 5.75 hectares instead of only one-half of this property as the other half should be titled to complainant Charito;
- Respondent had bloated the loan of the family from P400,000.00 to P800,000.00;
- Respondent had kept to himself and refused to return the sixteen (16) carat diamond ring of their mother;
- Respondent was guilty of machination and unfair dealings and was able to take a larger portion of the properties of their parents;
- Respondent's fraudulent conduct deprived his brothers and sisters of their rightful share in the properties left by their parents.
On October 19, 2010, complainants filed an addendum to their complaint and further claimed:
- That the 5.75 hectare property mentioned in the original complaint was already sold by respondent to his sister-in-law;
- That respondent spuriously sold the house and lot of their parents located at San Lorenzo Village, Makati City and that they were only given a measly share of P100,000.00.
Complainants prayed, thus:
(A) That respondent return the 2.875 hectares to [complainant] Charito.
(B) That the loan of Php 400,000.00 be accounted properly and the excess payments be returned x x x to his brothers [and] sisters[;]
(C) That the sixteen (16) Karat Diamond Ring be returned to the family's common property [to] be sold [and] proceeds [thereof] divided[;]
(D) That Atty. Rodolfo Robles be suspended or disbarred from all legal functions as member of the bar[;][1]
x x x x
b. That respondent Rodolfo Dia Robles [return] the excess amount of the sale of our San Lorenzo Home to his six (6) living brothers and sisters.[2]
On November 8, 2010, Atty. Robles filed his Comment. On November 22, 2010, he filed his Addendum to Comment as well as a Manifestation (Re: Addendum to Comment).
On December 15, 2010, complainant Charito filed an Addendum to Answer which was actually a reply to the Manifestation filed by Atty. Robles on November 22, 2010.
We painstakingly scrutinized all the pleadings submitted in this administrative case, including all the attachments, and we find the same absolutely lacking in merit.
"In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes [his/her] case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, this Court has consistently held that only x x x clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated."[3]
Complainants utterly failed to discharge this burden.
As to the 5.75 hectare property at Talisay, Tiaong,
Quezon (Lagalag property)
Charito claims entitlement to 1/2 share of this property based on the unsigned and undated piece of paper captioned as "Rowie's Partition."[4] Said document however is a mere handwritten listing or inventory of properties that were supposed to have been allocated to their sister, Rowena D. Robles, who passed away on March 24, 1982.
On the contrary, Atty. Robles was able to show that since June 2, 1986, this property containing a total area of 11.5694 hectares was registered in the names of complainant Charito and Atty. Robles as can be seen on the face of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 209639.[5] Also, in a document[6] which was handwritten and signed by their mother, it was clearly provided therein that the said property was already allocated to complainant Charito and Atty. Robles, each getting 5.75 hectares. In yet another instrument captioned as "Partition"[7] that was signed by the members of their family, the sharing indicated for this particular property is at 5.75 hectares each.
TCT No. 209639 was eventually subdivided between complainant Charito and Atty. Robles and each was issued a new TCT. Complainant Charito was issued TCT No. 366735[8] while Atty. Robles was issued TCT No. T-366734.[9] Based on said documents, complainant Charito and Atty. Robles each received 5.6447 hectares.
Therefore, the claim of Charito to 1/2 of the 5.75 hectare share of Atty. Robles has no basis.
As to the P400,000.00 loan which was
allegedly bloated by respondent
Complainants are claiming that respondent "multiplied twice the loan of the family from Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) to Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00)." To support this allegation, complainants presented a handwritten loan document[10] dated January 14, 1999 and another document[11] dated March 3, 1999, insisting that the latter is merely "a confirmation" of the January 14, 1999 loan.
Complainants' contention is untenable. The said amounts were allegedly used to defray the funeral expenses of the parents of the complainants and herein respondent. As correctly argued by Atty. Robles, why would they enter into a loan agreement for the burial expenses on January 14, 1999 when at such time their parents are still alive. Their father passed away on February 18, 1999 while their mother passed away on July 10, 1999. Therefore, we find it more credible that the March 3, 1999 loan was incurred because respondent advanced all the funeral expenses of their father. As to the July 14, 1999 loan, the same pertained to the expenses incurred for the funeral of their mother which was advanced by Atty. Robles.
The January 14, 1999 loan document which was prepared and signed in the Philippines could not have been dated as such because Frida D. Robles-Evangelista, their sister who allegedly prepared it was in the United States. In fact, complainant Charito was also in the United States at such time.
A simple comparison of the January 14, 1999 loan document and the July 14, 1999 loan document would show that they are identical in all material aspects except for the date. In the July 14, 1999 document, the top portion of the date appearing thereon "7/14/99" was somewhat slashed that made it look like "1/14/99." The two documents could actually be one and the same document.
From the above findings, it could be fairly deduced that there were two loan documents covering two different transactions. The first document referred to the expenses incurred for the funeral of their father, the second document pertained to the expenses incurred for their mother's funeral. As such, it could not be validly claimed that respondent doubled or bloated the loan amounts.
As to the 16-carat diamond ring of
their mother which is in the
possession of respondent
Complainants claim that respondent could not explain why the said 16-carat diamond ring of their mother was in his possession and why he refuses to return it to the family's common property.
The allegations of complainants have no basis. Respondent presented a Deed[12] of Sale executed on April 30, 1990 between him and his mother wherein it was shown that he paid P500,000.00 for the ring. The respondent therefore has the right to keep to himself the 16-carat diamond ring which he purchased from his mother.
As to the sale of the house and lot of
their parents located at San Lorenzo
Village, Makati City
Complainants allege that respondent spuriously sold the house and lot of their parents located at San Lorenzo Village, Makati City and that they were only given a measly share of P100,000.00 each.
On the other hand, Atty. Robles claims that their parents sold this property in July 1981 because they needed money to cover their medical and personal expenses. The said property was sold for P1.5 Million and all of the children received P100,000.00 each.
Indeed, aside from their bare assertion, complainants presented no evidence at all that respondent had a hand in the sale of the said property.
What is clear to us is that it was their parents, during their lifetime, who sold this property and not the respondent as claimed by the complainants.
In fine, we find no sufficient justification that calls for the exercise of our disciplinary power. In order for us to exercise the power to disbar, the dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. As complainants failed to discharge this burden, we are left with no choice but to dismiss this complaint.
"Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle."[13]
ACCORDINGLY, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.�
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Complaint-Affidavit, p. 4.[2] Addendum to the Complaint-Affidavit dated July 3, 2010, p. 3.
[3] Arma v. Montevilla, A.C. No. 4829, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 1, 8-9.
[4] Annex "B" of the Complaint-Affidavit.
[5] Annex "1" of Respondent's Comment.
[6] Annex "2" of Respondent's Comment.
[7] Annex "4" of Respondent's Comment.
[8] Annex "6" of Respondent's Comment.
[9] Annex "A" of the Complaint-Affidavit.
[10] Annex "C" of the Complaint-Affidavit.
[11] Annex "D" of the Complaint-Affidavit.
[12] Annex "16" of Respondent's Comment.
[13] Arma v. Montevilla, supra note 1 at 9-10 (2008).
