ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 6389. November 20, 2006]

JOHN FRANCIS BATT v. ATTY. JALORE BOLIVAR

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV. 20, 2006 .

A.C. No. 6389 (John Francis Batt v. Atty. Jalore Bolivar)

The instant administrative complaint for "ignorance of the law, incompetence, grave misconduct, knowingly rendering unjust judgment, malpractice, falsification of private documents and illegal practice of law" was filed by a British national, complainant John Francis Batt, against respondents Judge Victor P. Magahud of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental and Atty. Jalore Bolivar of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental.

The factual circumstances of the case as culled from the pleadings and annexes submitted by respondent are as follows:

Complainant and his common-law wife Renibel Pabillar were regular customers of Du Ek Sam, Inc., a corporation engaged in selling Honda motorcycles and home appliances. Respondent Atty. Bolivar is its in-house notary public. On March 27, 2002 and April 10, 2002, the couple purchased a television set on installment and executed chattel mortgage contracts on their purchases. Unfortunately, after making only one installment payment, the couple failed to pay despite repeated demands. Thereafter, the corporation lodged a complaint for estafa against the erring couple before the Chief of Police of Candani, Negros Occidental. An Information for estafa for violation of the Chattel Mortgage Law was thereafter filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ilog-Candoni, Dancalan, Ilog, Negros Occidental presided by respondent Judge Victor F. Magahud for preliminary investigation. However, the case was later dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Kabankalan City.

The instant disbarment Complaint ^[1] cralaw was received by the Office of the Court Administrator on January 6, 2004.

In his Comment, ^[2] cralaw respondent asserted that the transactions complainant entered into were just and valid obligations which he had willfully reneged. Respondent pointed out that complainant has filed numerous cases against him and other respondents to derail his (complainant's) prosecution for "grossly violating the laws of this country." Respondent prayed that the case against him be dismissed for utter lack of merit.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline thereafter issued Resolution No. XVII-2006-127, as follows:

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 sans clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED. However, Mr. John Francis Batt is hereby ADMONISHED not to file just any suit and for him to observe the laws of his host country.

The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation.

It is settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes the case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. ^[3] cralaw

In this case, aside from filing an almost incomprehensible letter-complaint, respondent likewise failed to appear before IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag in order to substantiate the charges against respondent. As the Court had the occasion to state in Garrido v. Quisumbing: ^[4] cralaw

x x x "while the Court will not hesitate to mete out the proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, it will, on the other hand, protect them from unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants. Private persons, particularly disgruntled opponents, may not therefore be permitted to use the courts as vehicles through which to vent their rancor on the members of the Bar" x x x So, too, the Court has ruled that where "the good name of counsel was traduced by an accusation made in reckless disregard of the truth x x x the severest censure is called for" x x x.

The Court thus resolves to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Atty. Jalore Bolivar. Complainant John Francis Batt is STERNLY ADMONISHED to refrain from filing frivolous cases.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 2-3.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 19-26.

^[3] cralaw Arienda v. Aguila, A.C. No. 5637, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 282, 287.

^[4] cralaw A.C. No. 3724, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 616, 621.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011