ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.C. No. 4963. July 31, 2000]
DEMETRIO C. MARERO vs. ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 31 2000.
A.C. No. 4963 (Demetrio C. Marero vs. Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz.)
On October 1, 1998, complainant Demetrio C. Marero filed with this Court a Complaint-Affidavit seeking the disbarment of Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz. Complainant alleged that on January 23, 1950, he purchased a parcel of land located in Antipolo, Rizal covered by OCT No. 4153 from spouses Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. As the owner's duplicate copy of the original certificate of title was lost during the was, complainant filed a Petition for Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title No. 4153 on January 23, 1997 before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. He engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz. Respondent allegedly informed complainant in June 1997 that all his documents pertaining to the lot covered by OCT No. 4153 were all fake and his petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of the title would be denied by the court. However, upon verification with the trial court, complainant discovered that his petition has been granted by said court in its Order dated March 10, 1997 and that the court issued a Certificate of Finality of said order to respondent. Respondent did not inform complainant of the court's resolution of the case. Furthermore, complainant learned from the Register of Deeds of Marikina that OCT No. 4153 has been cancelled and TCT No. 330000 was issued in the name of respondent and his wife, Leta dela Cruz, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 27, 1997 allegedly executed by spouses Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales in favor of respondent and his wife. Complainant alleged that such Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified as Pedro Sumulong died on September 26, 1950. Complainant claimed that respondent's actions constitute malpractice, gross misconduct and dishonesty.
Respondent, in his Comment, denied the allegations in the complaint. He claimed that it was part of a plot to blackmail him. He stated that complainant has in fact filed several other cases against him. Respondent disclaimed any participation in the execution of the fake Deed of Absolute Sale. He stated that complainant actually conveyed to him 30% of the property as payment for his legal services and later sold the remaining area to him for consideration. Hence, respondent argued that he could not have executed the fake deed as he had no need for it.
On February 10, 1999, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation/decision.
On January 17, 2000, the IBP transmitted to this Court the Notice of Resolution No. XIV-99-260 dismissing the complaint. It stated:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commission of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the case against Respondent is DISMISSED for no compelling reason to continue with the proceedings.
The IBP held in its Report and Recommendation:
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether respondent Atty. Miniano B. dela Cruz falsified the Deed of Absolute Sale presented before the Register of Deed of Marikina.
The documents presented by the respondent negates the claim of complainant that it was the respondent who falsified the subject Deed of Absolute Sale. In contract for Legal Service (Annex I) provided for a 30% of the whole lot as attorney's fees of respondent. This document was signed by complainant. The Sale of Real Property (Annex I-A) was also signed by complainant. Both documents were signed by the parties hence it is not correct to say that the Deed of Conditional Sale and Deed of Absolute Sale were executed unilaterally. If indeed the "fake" Deed of Sale was notarized by Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala, why is he not included in the charges? It is also noted that the joint affidavit of witnesses Nestor Aguirre and Adoracion Losloso was notarized by the same notary public.
The Statement of Account dated April 1, 1997 were likewise signed by the complainant signifying his conforme to said accounting.
In view of all the foregoing documents, the presumption that he who benefits from the falsification is presumed the author thereof will not lie. It is very apparent that the respondent had no motive to falsify for he is in possession of documents which sufficiently protects his rights over the subject property.
Except for the bare allegations of the complainant, there is no evidence to show that the respondent had any participation in the alleged falsification.
Time and again the courts had laid down the rule that a charge must rely on the strength of the evidence presented and not on the weakness of the defense.
Therefore, pursuant to Sec. 5 Rule 139-B it is recommended that the complaint against Atty. Miniano B. dela Cruz be dismissed, there being no compelling reason to continue with proceedings against the respondent.
The Court noted the Notice of Resolution No. XIV-99-260 on February 28, 2000.
On February 24, 2000, complainant filed with this Court a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the IBP. He assailed the validity of the documents submitted by respondent and relied upon by the IBP in rendering its resolution.
On April 5, 2000, the Court resolved to consider the Motion for Reconsideration as a petition for this Court to review the decision of the IBP under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and to require respondent to comment on said motion.
Respondent filed his comment on May 16, 2000.
Upon examination of the records, we observe that the IBP based its decision only on the annexes attached to the complaint and the comment. It did not conduct any hearing to verify the truth of the allegations in both the complaint and the comment and the authenticity and validity of the documents attached thereto. Apparently, both complainant and respondent agree that the deed of absolute sale purportedly executed by spouses Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales in favor of Miniano and Leta dela Cruz was fabricated. However, the question remains whether respondent was the author thereof. As earlier stated, the IBP based its conclusion on the documents submitted by respondent which complainant now claims to be falsified or mutually rescinded by the parties. Hence, we find that there is a need to refer this case back to the IBP for a more thorough investigation to determine the veracity of the allegations of the parties and the validity of the documents presented.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court resolves to REFER the case back to the IBP and order IBP to HEAR this case to allow the parties to present evidence to prove their case and to SUBMIT to this Court its report and recommendation within ninety days (90) days from receipt hereof.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
