ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.C. No. 4968. September 8, 1999]

ROSTATA vs. ATTY. SABITSANA, JR.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated SEPT 8 1999.

A.C. No. 4968 (Romualdo P. Rostata vs. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr.) and A.C. 5055 (Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.)

This resolves the complaints for disbarment against Attorneys Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr., docketed as A.C. No. 4968 and A.C. No. 5055, respectively.

Complainant Romualdo Rostata has a standing legal squabble with Irenea Verana regarding the possession and ownership of a parcel of riceland. In the court actions, Irenea Verana was represented by Atty. Sabitsana, Jr., while complainant Romualdo was represented by Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr.

On October 16, 1998, Romualdo Rostata filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. for alleged malpractice of law.1 [Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-5.] Complainant Rostata charged Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. of having forged a complaint for quieting of title and instigating his client to file baseless criminal cases against him.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In 1978, Irenea Verana purchased a parcel of riceland from the heirs of Apolonia Rostata. Verana cultivated the property until possession was forcibly taken from her by Romualdo Rostata and his relatives. To recover the property, Verana filed a case for forcible entry against the group of Romualdo Rostata. She regained possession of the property in February 1995.2 [Rollo, p. 57.]

To counterbalance the forcible entry case against him, on March 30, 1992, Romualdo Rostata filed with the regional trial court of Biliran a civil case for quieting of title against Irenea Verana.3 [This was docketed as Civil Case No. B-0287.] In this case, Romualdo Rostata was assisted by Atty. Napoleon Ronquillo and later by Atty. Leo Giron. The trial court dismissed this case on January 21, 1994.

On May 16, 1996, the group of Romualdo Rostata entered the property and harvested the palay planted therein.4 [Rollo, p. 57.] This prompted Irenea Verana to file a complaint for robbery against the former.

During the proceedings in the criminal case for robbery, Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. allegedly presented a forged document. The document which complainant Rostata claims to have been forged by respondent Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. refers to the complaint for quieting of title case which has been dismissed and decided by the trial court on January 21, 1994. Complainant Rostata denied having signed the complaint and filed said case.

Another basis for the disbarment complaint was the alleged act of Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. of instigating his client Irenea Verana to file baseless criminal cases against complainant Rostata. Particularly, complainant Rostata claims that the criminal case for theft and robbery were filed without preliminary investigation.

In the Comment filed on February 18, 1999, Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. answered all the allegations against him. He denied forging Romualdo Rostata's signature because he had no hand in the preparation of the complaint for quieting of title. Evidence showed that Rostata was assisted by his own counsel, in the person of Atty. Ronquillo, in the preparation of the complaint for quieting of title. During the trial, Rostata never raised the issue of forgery; instead he actively participated.

With regard to the alleged instigation of cases, Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. also denied this. Prior to the filing of the case for robbery, a preliminary investigation was conducted as shown by a copy of the resolution in I.S. No. 96-20.5 [Rollo, p. 34.] Insofar as the case for theft was concerned, Judge Anita T. Baldesco de Loyola, acting judge of the municipal circuit trial court of Caibiran Biliran conducted a preliminary examination on February 28, and March 14, 1995.6 [Rollo, p. 35.]

Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. made a manifestation before this Court to have his Comment of February 18, 1999 treated as an administrative complaint against Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.7 [Rollo, p. 27.] In the resolution of April 7, 1999, we treated the Comment as a complaint for disbarnment and ordered that it be docketed as a separate administrative case against Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.8 [Rollo, p. 85.]

We jointly resolve these complaints for disbarment against Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. should be dismissed for being unfounded and unsupported by evidence. Contrary to the claim of Romualdo Rostata, the records of the case showed that Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. merely performed his duties as a lawyer. There was nothing irregular nor contumacious in his behavior as such. Being an officer of the court, Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. has in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his sworn duties and responsibilities.9 [People vs. Sabban, 260 SCRA 630.]

In relation to A.C. No. 5055 against Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr., the same should also be dismissed for being without basis. There is no evidence to support the administrative complaint of Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. against Atty. Gabino A. Velasquez, Jr.

WHEREFORE, we resolve to DISMISS A.C. Nos. 4968 and 5055, against Attorneys Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Gabino A. Velasquez. Jr., respectively. DAVIDE, JR., C.J. and CHAIRMAN, is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE