[A.C. No. CBD-470. December 5, 2000]

SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. LEYVA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 5 2000.

A.C. No. CBD-470 (Catalina I. Sanchez v. Atty. Lupo I. Leyva.)

For consideration is the Manifestation and Compliance, dated January 22, 2000, filed by respondent Atty. Lupo I. Leyva praying that this case be remanded to the IBP Board of Governors so that it can resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent of the IBP resolution imposing on him a fine of P25,000.00.

The antecedents are as follows:

On March 12, 1997, a letter-complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant Catalina I. Sanchez with the Department of Justice charging respondent Lupo I. Leyva of having committed the following acts:

1. Having vowed to revenge against me for my incidentally and unknowingly revealed sic to his wife he had illicit relations with his secretary when he was Ambassador outside the country; he will revenge to the last drop of my blood;

2. Presenting another woman as the common-law wife of my husband, Roberto Sanchez, the common-law wife presented was not the real Carmen Ramirez Vda. de Alcantara;

3. Beastly behavior, unlawful of his legal profession - he drove me away from his house like a stray animal saying "Lumayas ka, hindi ka kailangan sa pamamahay ko," etc.;

4. Supervising the survey of Lot 1, Bik 5 where the 275 sq. m. of my husband is located together with Fermin Cayarian, 207 sq. m. and Jaime Villanueva, 617 sq. m. in a common title but not indicating the tie points of the definite portions of each owner; I paid P10,000. for the survey to my hired surveyor Alexander Ocampo;

5. Making a mockery of justice - the courts seem confused and cannot make their decisions, from all angles, this voracious and heinous lawyer wants my husband's 275 sq. m. for himself - the two illegitimate children he claims have not raised their hands/voices to claim their share probably they know my husband was jobless the more than 23 years we lived together husband and wife, besides I have not seen them even once visit their father, if he was their real father,

6. This voracious and hemous lawyer is so confused, he does not know how and from whom to earn his bread for himself and his family;

7. Telling the PAO lawyers not to give me legal assistance; and

8. Blocking Sheriff's sale.

On March 20, 1997, the Department of Justice endorsed the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline which, on August 8, 1997, required respondent to file his answer. Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint and to appear before the Commission, although he now claims that he did not receive the order of the IBP requiring him to file an answer.

On June 19, 1999, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIII-99-170 adopting and approving the report and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Renato B. Cunanan to impose a fine of not less than P25,000.00 on respondent "for failure to observe Rule 1.04 and for violation of Canons 7 and 12, with a warning that any similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely."

On August 24, 1999, this Court noted the IBP resolution and the attached report of the investigating commissioner.

On August 27, 1999, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the IBP's decision in which be denied having received a copy of the IBP order directing him to file an answer. Consequently, he contended, there was no basis for the Commission's finding that he had deliberately ignored its orders.

In a resolution dated September 27, 1997, the IBP Board of Governors denied respondent's motion for reconsideration, stating that there was "no substantive reason to reverse the finding therein, moreover, the pleading is improper as the remedy of the respondent is to file the appropriate Motion with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of said Decision pursuant to Section 12 (c) of Rule 139-B."

Hence, on February 9, 2000, respondent filed with this Court his aforesaid Manifestation and Compliance seeking the remand of this case to the IBP Board of Governors.

In a resolution dated March 28, 2000, the Court required the complainant and the investigating commissioner to comment. Complainant filed her comment, reiterating the contents of her letter-complaint to the DOJ, while Investigating Commissioner Cunanan interposed no objection to the referral of the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline so as to accord respondent an opportunity to be personally heard.

Rule 139-B, 12 (c) of the Rules of Court provides the procedure in reviewing decisions of the IBP Board of Governors in administrative cases against lawyers as follows:

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.

First. The Manifestation and Compliance of respondent may be treated as a petition for review of the IBP's resolutions within the purview of the above provision of Rule 139-B, 12(c). Although the said rule makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may therefore be filed by a party within 15 days from notice. Indeed, the filing of such motion should be encouraged before resort is made to this Court as a matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford the agency rendering the judgment an opportunity to correct any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of the evidence. 1 Halimao v. Villanueva, 253 SCRA 1 (1996).

Second. In his motion for reconsideration filed with the IBP, respondent raises an issue of due process which, if proven and substantiated, will render the proceedings before the IBP null and void.

As held in Sattar v. Lopez, 2 271 SCRA 290 (1997). procedural due process in disbarment or suspension proceedings requires that respondent be given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. In this regard, if indeed respondent was not notified of the orders of the Commission on Bar Discipline, then the decision against him is deemed to be without legal effect.

The report dated November 28, 1998 of Investigating Commissioner Cunanan, which was adopted by the Board, in fact makes a finding of lack of factual basis for the complaint filed against respondent, thus:

The primary question in our mind is whether or not complainant Catalina I. Sanchez has legal and factual basis to pray for the disbarment of the respondent. We are inclined to deny the complainant's prayer for lack of factual/legal basis to justify the same. In the absence of convincing proof of misconduct and because of the rule that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence, this action for disbarment cannot prosper (Segovia v. Sardana, 74 SCRA 59).

Considering the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension, it has been consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is required to justify the imposition of either penalty. (Lim v. Antonio, 41 SCRA 44). (Underscore added)

Nonetheless, respondent was found guilty of violations of other provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility summarized in the report of the investigating commission as follows:

We noted at the outset, based on the complainant's letter to Secretary Guingona, that respondent has developed a personal animosity towards her, a claim which has not been controverted since Atty. Leyva chose to ignore our order for him to comment/answer the complaint. We note further that as counsel for Villanueva and Cayarian, the respondent, rather than abbreviate litigation, exerted his utmost to protract the same. This attitude of Atty. Leyva does violence to his avowed duties set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility. In particular, the respondent has failed to observe Rule 1.04 of the Code which enjoins a lawyer to encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement;

By deliberately ignoring an Order from the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Leyva has also violated Canon 7 of the Code which mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar;

Finally, we hold that by fomenting litigation rather than discouraging it, Atty. Lupo I. Leyva has violated Canon 12 which mandates that every lawyer shall exert effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice;

Due process mandates that respondent should be given an opportunity to refute these findings. It is, therefore, praiseworthy for Investigating Commissioner Cunanan to state in his comment on respondent's Manifestation and Compliance that he interposes no objection for the remand of the case to the IBP so that respondent will be given an opportunity to be personally heard.

WHEREFORE, respondent's manifestation and motion dated January 22, 2000 praying that the case be remanded to the IBP for a hearing on the merits of the case is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for reinvestigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records thereof..

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court�

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com