Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

A.C. No. 6998 (Clarita O. Santiano v. Atty. Teodulo Punzalan).

RESOLUTION 

On December 6, 2005 complainant Clarita O. Santiano filed a case for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Teodulo M. Punzalan. Punzalan then submitted his Comment. The Court then noted PunzaLan's Comment and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation.

Santiano contends that Punzalan first assisted her in a case in the late '70s when Punzalan was then a lawyer of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. They met again in 1994, and Punzalan had represented her since then. Santiano claims that she was forced at one time to obtain a loan of P20,000.00 from TJ Lending Investors, Inc. (TJ Lending) to be able to pay Punzalan's attorney's fees. Punzalan likewise allegedly urged her to issue checks payable to TJ Lending although she had no transactions with it. Further, he told her that he owns TJ Lending and that the checks would only serve as proof of his unpaid legal fees. He explained that the checks should be made in favor of the financing company because they issue receipts for legal fees paid in cash only. According to Santiano, Punzalan informed her that the financing company and the law office are one and the same.

Lastly, after Punzalan withdrew as Santiano's counsel, she was prosecuted for violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22 for her issuance of the two checks to TJ Lending - one amounting to P34,040.00 and another one amounting to P174,000.00. Santiano asserts that when Punzalan revealed the list of her real properties that were levied in the BP 22 case, he violated the attorney-client privilege and Article 1491 of the Civil Code.

Punzalan denies Santiano's accusations. He attests that he has nothing to do with the business operations of TJ Lending. He withdrew as Santiano's counsel because the latter defrauded him. He alleges that Santiano promised to deliver to him one-half of the rental deposits in one case he was handling as payment of his fees, but she disappeared after encashing the checks.

On July 2, 2007 the IBP recommended that the case against Punzalan be dismissed. In a Resolution dated August 17, 2007 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner.

The Court sustains the IBP recommendation.

In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge.^[1] Here, Santiano just fell short of this obligation. She failed to substantiate her claims that she issued the checks in favor of TJ Lending as payment of Punzalan's attorney's fees. No proof was also adduced to establish that TJ Lending and Punzalan's law office are the same, or that Punzalan in fact owns the financing company. An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved,^[2] such that mere allegations without any evidence and baseless accusations will not suffice.

Santiano likewise failed to prove that Punzalan violated the rule on attorney-client privilege. It was not shown that Punzalan actually released or provided the supposed list of Santiano's properties in the BP 22 case. Lastly, there is no evidence that Punzalan ever purchased Santiano's properties in litigation while he was still the latter�s lawyer. Hence, Article 1491^[3] of the Civil Code finds no application in this case.  cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for the disbarment of Atty. Teodulo M. Punzalan is DISMISSED  for lack of merit. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., designated Acting Members in lieu of Mendoza and Velasco, Jr., JJ., respectively, per Special Orders 1229 and 1241, dated June 6, 2012 and June 14, 2012, respectively.)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Solidon v. Macalalad, A.C. No. 8158, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 472, 476.

^[2] Rafols, Jr. v. Barrios, Jr., A.C. No. 4973, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 206, 237. 

^[3] Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:

x x x x 

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon on execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and, shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. (Emphasis ours)