ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.C. No. 6580.� August 3, 2005]
DELA CRUZ vs. SALADERO
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 3 2005.
A.C. No. 6580 (CBD 03-1175) (Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz vs. Atty. Remegio D. Saladero, Jr.)
A complaint dated December 16, 2003 was filed by Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging respondent of violating the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing disbarment, criminal and administrative cases against complainant without legal and factual bases, for submitting false affidavits, for refusing his invitation to have a "brotherly" talk as fellow lawyer to clarify the matters between complainant and respondent's clients and for filing a prohibited pleading.
Specifically, complainant accuses respondent of: filing, through Adoracion Losloso, a baseless disbarment case against him supported by two false affidavits; sending complainant a letter charging him of estafa and ignoring complainant's reply thereto; refusing complainant's invitation to a "brotherly" talk; filing an estafa case through falsification of public document and four other criminal complaints against herein complainant, through Losloso, which were eventually dismissed for being groundless; filing an HLURB case in behalf of Losloso and Nestor Aguirre without verifying the truth of their claims; filing a motion to dismiss the ejectment case filed by complainant against Losloso before the barangay knowing that such is a prohibited pleading; and helping Losloso to file motions to inhibit a prosecutor in Pasig for alleged bias. [1] cralaw
Respondent filed an answer contending that: he merely acted as counsel of the parties who filed cases against complainant and out of the 17 cases filed by Adoracion Losloso against complainant, respondent only handles four which are still pending resolution; it would be premature to say that said cases were filed only to harass complainant; there is no showing that respondent is moved by malice or bad faith in agreeing to act as counsel of Losloso; Losloso also alleged that it was a public attorney who was assisting her in all her cases by preparing the various pleadings in court; and it is only because said public attorney could not appear in court that she asked the assistance of respondent and eventually engaged the legal services of respondent when the public attorney died. [2] cralaw
On February 17, 2004, complainant filed a Reply to the answer reiterating his earlier claims which respondent countered with a Rejoinder asserting the same denials. [3] cralaw
A mandatory conference was held on April 16, 2004 and on said date, IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala directed the parties to submit their respective position papers. [4] cralaw On June 7, 2004, she submitted her report dated June 7, 2004, finding that:
...In the case at hand, complainant failed to present a clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that respondent has been moved by malice and bad faith in accepting to serve as legal counsel of Mrs. Adoracion Losloso. Moreover, records show that the cases, where respondent acted as counsel for Mrs. Losloso have not been resolved, and therefore, it could not be determined yet whether or not they are meritorious. [5] cralaw
She then recommended that the instant case of disbarment filed against respondent be dismissed for lack of merit. [6] cralaw
On July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution thus:
RESOLUTION NO. XVI-2004-349
CBD Case No. 03-1175
Atty. Miniano B. dela Cruz vs.
Atty. Remegio D. Saladero, Jr.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that the complaint lacks merit, the case is hereby DISMISSED. [7] cralaw
On October 19, 2004, complainant filed before this Court a Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds that: the report and recommendation of IBP Commissioner Maala is not based on correct records of the case; Maala's report and recommendation did not consider the violations of respondent under Sec. 20 of Rule 138 [8] cralaw of the Rules of Court, Canons 1, [9] cralaw 8 [10] cralaw and 12, [11] cralaw and Rules 1.02, 1.03, and 1.04 of the Code of Professional Conduct; [12] cralaw the report and recommendation did not discuss the failure of respondent to conduct an investigation to ascertain the veracity of the complaint for Estafa, disbarment and complaint before the HLURB, among others; and the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors erred in approving the incomplete and defective report of Maala and should therefore be set aside. [13] cralaw
On December 28, 2004, complainant filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration emphasizing the issue that respondent filed groundless cases against him. [14] cralaw
On April 13, 2005, respondent filed a Comment stating that: complainant, instead of filing a petition from the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(c), erroneously filed a motion for reconsideration; contrary to the allegations of complainant, respondent acted in good faith and studied the supporting documents of Losloso first before sending complainant the demand letter; respondent was not the one who filed the cases before the HLURB, the Prosecutors' Office and the IBP; respondent came into the picture long after these cases have been filed; respondent agreed to handle the said cases based on his honest assessment that there is a valid cause of action against complainant; [15] cralaw the investigating IBP commissioner was not biased in requiring respondent to submit his position paper despite his failure to attend the mandatory hearing on time; respondent agreed to the order of Maala requiring both parties to submit position papers and it was only when the commissioner dismissed his complaint that complainant raised the issue of bias; respondent enjoys the presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him and complainant has failed to convincingly prove that respondent has acted in bad faith in the manner by which he has handled the cases pending between complainant and Losloso, et al.; complainant himself has filed several cases against Losloso (cancellation of contract, estafa and perjury) which have been dismissed; since these cases were also found to be without merit, complainant, following his line of reasoning, should also be considered as having harassed Losloso in violation of his oath as a lawyer. [16] cralaw
First of all, we are treating herein motion for reconsideration as a petition referred to in Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(c).
After reviewing the records of this case, we find the report and recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, to be well-founded.
Well-settled is the rule that he who alleges must prove his allegations. If the complainant, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. [17] cralaw
Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. [18] cralaw But his guilt cannot be presumed. [19] cralaw A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing will not suffice. [20] cralaw There must be sufficient evidence to support the charge. [21] cralaw
In this case, complainant accuses respondent of filing baseless charges against him. Apart from his bare allegations, however, complainant failed to show that respondent did in fact file baseless cases against him. As borne by the records, the complaint, as well as the motions for reconsideration of the denial thereof, for estafa through falsification of public document, was filed by Adoracion Losloso; [22] cralaw the disbarment case before the IBP were filed by Losloso, Sheila Bones-Lei and Nestor Aguirre; [23] cralaw while the HLURB case was filed by Losloso and Aguirre. [24] cralaw Aside from complainant's allegations, there is no proof that respondent prodded said individuals to file cases against herein complainant. Adoracion Losloso even executed a sworn statement expressing that it was Atty. Ramon Vera of the Public Attorney's Office in Pasig who helped her in filing the cases before the fiscal, the HLURB and the IBP. She also categorically stated that herein respondent only entered the picture after the said cases had already been filed and that he did not have any participation in the drafting of said complaints. She also explained that out of the 20 cases filed between her and herein complainant, respondent only participated in four cases which are still pending resolution. [25] cralaw
Apart from complainant's naked assertions, there is also no proof anywhere in the records that respondent filed false affidavits to support the disbarment case against complainant in the IBP. Neither is there any showing that respondent filed a prohibited pleading, In any case, we cannot see how such pleading, if ever one was filed, could be a basis for disbarment. Neither could respondent's refusal to have a "brotherly talk over a cup of coffee" with complainant or respondent's act of helping Losloso file a motion to inhibit a prosecutor in Pasig for alleged bias could be a basis for disciplinary action.
What is only clear is that herein respondent sent complainant a letter dated May 17, 2001 demanding that complainant give Losloso, et al. their commission for the sale of a property in Antipolo based on a Memorandum of Agreement, otherwise Losloso, et al. would be constrained to file appropriate criminal, civil and administrative complaints against herein complainant. [26] cralaw We cannot, based on this letter alone, say that respondent was moved by malice or bad faith.
We reiterate that in disbarment proceedings, such as the case at bar, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. This Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. In the absence of convincing or clearly preponderant evidence, the complaint for disbarment against respondent is correctly dismissed [27] cralaw by the IBP Board of Governors.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Atty. Miniano Dela Cruz, is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-8.
[2] cralaw Id., pp. 24-27.
[3] cralaw Id., pp. 112-119, 123-131.
[4] cralaw Id., p. 224.
[5] cralaw Id., p. 229.
[6] cralaw Ibid.
[7] cralaw Rollo, p. 224.
[8] cralaw Rule 138, Sec. 20. Duties of attorney. - It is the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
(b) To maintain respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secret of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality, and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
[9] cralaw Canon 1. - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
[10] cralaw Canon 8. - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
[11] cralaw Canon 12. - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
[12] cralaw Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03. - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04. - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
[13] cralaw Id., p. 230.
[14] cralaw Id., pp. 260-264.
[15] cralaw Id., pp. 274-276.
[16] cralaw Id., pp. 284-294.
[17] cralaw Sps. Boyboy vs. Yabut, A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003, 401 SCRA 622, 627.
[18] cralaw Re: Administrative Case No. 44 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City, against Atty. Samuel Occe�a, A.C. No. 2841, July 3, 2002, 383 SCRA 636, 649.
[19] cralaw Id., pp. 649-650
[20] cralaw Sps. Boyboy vs. Yabut, supra, p. 627.
[21] cralaw Ibid.
[22] cralaw Rollo, pp. 43-75.
[23] cralaw Id., pp. 76-82.
[24] cralaw Id., pp. 83-90.
[25] cralaw Id., pp. 110-111.
[26] cralaw Id., p. 10.
[27] cralaw Aquino vs. Villamar-Mangaoang, A.C. No. 4934, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 572, 576.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
