February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.C. No. 7390 : February 27, 2012]
NEHEMY MORAN, PETITIONER, VERSUS ATTY. PERCY M. MORON, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 7390 - NEHEMY MORAN[1], petitioner, versus ATTY. PERCY M. MORON, respondent.
Before us is a petition for review[2] under Section 12 (c)[3], Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court assailing Resolution No. XVIII-2008-339 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Report and Recommendation[4] of the Investigating Commissioner. Petitioner Nehemy Moran alleges that the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner committed grave abuse of discretion in resolving the present administrative matter he filed against his full-blood brother, herein respondent Atty. Percy M. Moron.
In his Affidavit-Complaint,[5] petitioner alleged that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1,[6] Rule 7.03, Canon 7,[7] and the Lawyer's Oath. The material averments of his complaint are summarized by the IBP Commission, on Bar Discipline as follows:
x x x The complaint [arose in connection with] a piece of land allegedly sold to the complainant by the respondent.
Records will show that there was a Deed of Sale[8] [e]xecuted by the parties in October 2001. After the sale, the Complainant herein went to the United States and begun harvesting from the said land thru his caretakers
On the year 2005 however, Respondent sent a letter to Complainant ordering the complainant to stop harvesting from the property on the ground that there was no sale that has been consummated between the parties.[9]
In his Position Paper,[10] which he submitted during the investigation before the IBP, respondent admitted that there was a sale but he called it a "simulated one." He alleged that he is the "registered primitive owner of an agricultural land;" that �[s]ince no specific property was adjudicated to the complainant [as inheritance], the respondent, out of compassion, offered to donate the excess of the six (6) hectares of the aforecited agricultural land titled in respondent's name:" and that "complainant brought a simulated deed of sale to the respondent respecting to that part of the agricultural land the latter had promised to donate, and pleaded that the latter sign the document as the former was already about to depart for the United States." Respondent emphasized that the sale was never consummated as complainant never paid the purchase price of P20,000. He added that petitioner continued with his peaceful possession of the property until 2005 when respondent decided to treat the contract of sale with a simulated price as null and void. Respondent averred that he did so because of his disappointment when he discovered that (1) petitioner has been harvesting the coconut fruits on the land of another brother; (2) petitioner applied for a contractor's license using his daughter�s name and falsifying the signature of one of their brothers: and (3) per information from the police, petitioner almost hacked their father to death.[11]
On March 14, 2008, petitioner submitted his Reply.[12]
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP
In her Report and Recommendation dated June 19, 2008,[13] Investigating Commissioner Maria Editha Co-Bi�as held that since the parties, who are full-blood brothers, were just swayed by their emotions, the respondent should only be reprimanded for unilaterally treating the notarized deed of sale as simulated and not honoring the same. The Investigating Commissioner observed that the respondent erred, but he never manifestly and grossly engaged in any deceitful acts, nor was there any showing that he abetted in an activity aimed at defiance of the law. Further, the case does not warrant disbarment or suspension at all.
On July 17, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution reversing the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2008-339
Adm. Case No. 7390
Nehemy Moran vs.
Atty. Percy M. MoronRESOLVED to REVERSE, as it is hereby unanimously REVERSED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of merit.[14]
The Resolution, together with the records of the case, was thereafter transmitted to this Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 12(b)[15] of the Rules of Court. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition for review.
Petitioner tenders the following issues for the Court's consideration:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER HAS GRAVELY ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN HER RESOLUTION WHICH IS GROSSLY CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASES[;]
B.
WHETHER OR NOT THE IBP COMMISSION ON BAR GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2008-339[;]
C.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT [SHOULD] BE DISBARRED FOR COMMITING ACTS CONTRARY TO THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE LAWYER'S OATH[.][16]
Petitioner alleges that both the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors committed grave abuse of discretion: the Investigating Commissioner for finding, despite the absence of evidence, that respondent was moved merely by the impulse of his emotions when he unilaterally treated the deed of absolute sale as a simulated contract, and the IBP Board of Governors for dismissing his complaint on the ground that it was without merit. Petitioner argues that the allegations of fact in his Mandatory Conference Brief[17] which he submitted before the Commission on Bar Discipline, show clearly that respondent should be disbarred.
The Court adopts the July 17, 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. The records show that the evidence adduced by the complainant is insufficient to warrant the imposition of the supreme sanction of disbarment.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer's oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.
Disbarment should never be imposed unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his serious misconduct, should no longer remain a member of the bar. Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe�such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine�would accomplish the end desired.[19]
We agree with the Investigating Commissioner that the respondent erred in acting on his own accord that the sale is void. The evidence shows that he treated the Deed of Sale as simulated in 2005 even before he filed a case in court in 2007 for the Declaration of Nullity of Sale. However, disbarment is too harsh a penalty for this simple error. Just like in criminal cases, mitigating circumstances may also be considered in favor of the respondent which has the effect of lessening the gravity of the administrative imposition that may be meted to him.[20] The Investigating Commissioner aptly observed that it was only after the respondent learned of complainant's acts of harvesting coconuts on their brother's land, falsifying a brother's signature in an application for a contractor's license, and hacking their father that respondent decided to act. Under the circumstances, respondent merely wanted to save his other brother's property where petitioner was also found to be harvesting the produce. This, coupled with his discovery that complainant almost hacked to death their father, made the respondent want to rescind the contract. Clearly, respondent's emotional state prevailed on him and his decision to treat the Deed of Absolute Sale as simulated was a wrongful retaliatory act but not necessarily deceitful or immoral.
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.[21] This signifies that neither party to a contract may unilaterally and upon his own exclusive volition, escape his obligations therein, unless the other party assented thereto, or unless for causes sufficient in law and pronounced adequate by a competent tribunal.[22]
When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document under his hand and seal he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery.[23] Thus, by virtue of their Deed of Absolute Sale, it was a notice to the whole world that vendor Atty. Percy Moron, herein respondent, warrants the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property sold to herein petitioner, Nehemy Moran, in consideration of the sum of P20,000. Respondent cannot unilaterally withdraw from their contract of sale unless and until the contract is declared null and void. But considering the absence of any other circumstance which would show that respondent is unfit to continue as a member of the Bar or that he has in any way gravely violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, we find that the penalty of reprimand is appropriate for the error committed in this case.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. However, respondent Atty. Percy M. Moron is REPRIMANDED with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Petitioner's family name was changed from MORON, as appearing in the birth certificate, to MORAN per a Judicial Decree; rollo, p. 410.[2] Rollo, pp. 409-417.
[3] Sec. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.-
x x x x
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution the Supreme Court orders otherwise.
x x x x
[4] Rollo, pp. 403-408.
[5] Id. at 3-16.
[6] CANON 1�A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
[7] CANON 7�A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
[8] Rollo, p. 17.
[9] Id. at 403.
[10] Id. at 296-307.
[11] Id. at 297-299.
[12] Id. at 320-321.
[13] Id. at 403-408.
[14] Id. at 402.
[15] Sec. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.-
x x x x
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together With the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
x x x x
[16] Rollo, pp. 411-412.
[17] Id. at 277-286.
[18] Vda. De Rosales v. Ramos, A.C. No. 5645, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 498, 506.
[19] Kara-an v. Pineda, A.C. No. 4306, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 143, 146, citing Soriano v. Reyes, A.C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 328, 343.
[20] Ernesto L. Pineda, Legal Ethics Annotated (2009 ed.) pp. 433-434.
[21] Article 1159, CIVIL CODE.
[22] Edgardo L. Paras, IV CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED (14th ed., 2000), p. 81.
[23] Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, supra note 18, citing Antillon v. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148, 153 (1917).