ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 4828.February 5, 2001]

GALOPE vs. ATTY. PUNZALAN

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.

A.C. No. 4828(Erlinda B. Galope vs. Atty. Teodulo M. Punzalan.)

This is a complaint filed by complainant Erlinda B. Galope against respondent Atty. Teodulo M. Punzalan for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

It appears that respondent filed a civil case for damage to property, involving his Mitsubishi Lancer GLXi vehic!e, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Manila against Bartolome Puzon, Jr., Silvano O. Galope (complainant's husband), and Pioneer insurance. Respondent bought the said vehicle for P500,000.00 from one Evangeline A. Buenviaje on February 28, 1995.

Silvano Galope moved for the dismissal of the case, alleging that respondent was not the owner of the Mitsubishi Lancer and, therefore, was not the real party-in-interest to bring the suit. He also argued that since the damage claimed was P150,000.00, the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case. Respondent submitted a deed of absolute sale as proof of his ownership of the vehicle on the basis of which the motion to dismiss of Silvano Galope was denied.

Erlinda B. Galope (herein complainant) filed the present complaint in behalf of her husband Silvano Galope who was abroad at that time. Complainant claimed that the signature of Evangeline A. Buenviaje in the subject deed of absolute sale was a forgery, the fact being that the alleged vendor Evangeline Buenviaje had denied she had signed the deed of sale. Complainant alleged that because of the falsified deed, RTC, Branch 6, denied her motion to dismiss.

In his comment, respondent stated that the complaint was a mere rehash of an earlier complaint which complainant had filed against him in the Prosecutor's Office of Manila for falsification of a public document. The criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent claimed that representatives of Silvano Galope in fact offered to settle the damage suit but nothing came out of the negotiation as the amount offered was too small.

In reply thereto, complainant reiterated that the signature of the vendor Evangeline Buenviaje in the deed of sale was a forgery. She claimed that Evangeline Buenviaje perjured herself by stating in the deed of sale that the vehicle being sold was free from any lien or encumbrance, because the fact was that it was mortgaged to PCI Bank. The sale was not recorded in the Notarial Division of the Manila City Hall.

The Office of the Bar Confidant, finding no evidence whatsoever that respondent had forged the signature of Evangeline Buenviaje in the deed of sale, recommends that the complaint against respondent be dismissed.

The recommendation is well taken. In disbarment proceedings, the complainant has the burden of establishing his case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently demanded that clear preponderant evidence be presented to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty on the respondent (Concepcion v. Fandi�o, Jr., A.C. No. 3677, June 21, 2000). In this case, complainant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had indeed forged the signature of Evangeline Buenviaje in the deed of sale. To the contrary, Evangeline Buenviaje affirmed in an affidavit dated November 3, 1997 the genuineness and authenticity of her signature in the deed. It is noteworthy that the criminal complaint for falsification of a public document filed by complainant against respondent was dismissed by the Prosecutor's Office of Manila precisely on the ground that the alleged offended party, Evangeline Buenviaje, denied in her affidavit that her signature had been forged and stated that respondent was the owner of the motor vehicle and that he merely used her name for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the bank.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Teodulo M. Punzalan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE