ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 5715.
ROSAL vs. Vera, Jr.
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 14 2005.
A.C. No. 5715 (Angela C. Rosal vs. Atty. Isidoro R. Vera, Jr.)
Considering the Report and Recommendation of the Office of the
Bar Confidant dated
In a complaint, dated June 7, 2002 (Rollo, p. 1), complainant ANGELA C. ROSAL accused respondent ATTY. ISIDORO R. VERA, JR. with violations of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility relative to I.S. No. 02-B-487 (Lolita de Leon vs. Ofelia Cruz, et al.) for estafa before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Para�aque City.
Complainant alleges that respondent, counsel for private
complainant Lolita de Leon, with undue haste and without making the necessary
investigation, filed an estafa case against her
(complainant). The Office of the City Prosecutor, in a resolution dated
In his comment, dated
Respondent admits that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Para�aque indeed dismissed the estafa case despite the existence of a prima facie case. According to him, however, the resolution of dismissal was appealed and pending before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Respondent further claims that he has no dealing with the complainant. Complainant only wants to get even with him as he happens to be the counsel of the New San Antonio Valley 5 Homeowners Association which filed a complaint for dissolution of the existing San Antonio Valley 5 Homeowners Association, Inc. with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Respondent alleges that the complainant is the treasurer and her husband, Atty. Pacifico C. Rosal, the counsel of the said San Antonio Valley 5 Homeowners Association, Inc.
In a reply, dated
The instant administrative case should be dismissed for being unsubstantiated.
Records show that respondent merely acted as counsel for private complainant Lolita de Leon in the filing of said estafa case against herein complainant pursuant to Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides, thus:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The dismissal of the estafa case by the Office of the Prosecutor is not sufficient to support complainant's charge that the respondent falsified the complaint. The prosecutor merely dismissed the case basically on the ground that there was no prima facie case. The affidavit, dated February 5, 2002 (Annex "B" to the comment, Rollo, p. 141), executed by Lolita de Leon and photocopy of an Official Receipt No. 0740, dated February 24, 1999 (Annex "C", Rollo, p. 142) were the bases of the complaint for estafa. Respondent had to rely on the documents presented to him by his client. There is no showing that respondent had ill motive against the complainant for him to fabricate said complaint for estafa against the latter. Neither was there any indication that respondent had any personal interest in filing said estafa case against the complainant. Thus, the allegation that respondent had falsified the complaint for estafa case is bereft of merit.
The assertion of complainant in her reply that respondent misled the court considering there was no such appeal filed before the DOJ cannot be given credence as she failed to substantiate the same. She did not submit any proof, like a certification from the said office, confirming her allegation.
Complainant should have laid all possible clear and convincing evidence to show that her imputations against the respondent are true, but she failed to do the same.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Conception vs. Fandi�o, Jr., 334 SCRA 136, held that:
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
Complainant in this case has never offered any evidence supporting her allegations. Thus, such accusation is but a mere allegation.
In the case of Manubay
vs. Garcia,
Adm. Case No. 4700,
Allegation is never equivalent to proof and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.
Further, in the case of em>Concepcion vs. Fandi�o, Jr., supra, the Supreme Court held that:
Absent showing of clear preponderant evidence to sustain the charge against the respondent, the complaint must be dismissed. The Policy of the Court in disbarment in a disbarment proceeding is to dismiss, (sic)
There must be adequate evidence to prove the charge of the complainant. She failed to establish the guilt of herein respondent for lack of clear and convincing evidence. Hence, the complaint must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended that the instant administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Isidoro R. Vera, Jr. be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the law and the facts on record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Atty. Isidoro R. Vera, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
