SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11301. July 27, 2016.]
NORBERTA ALETRE, DAHLIA B. SORIANO, EDITHA D. SUSI, THELMA R. VELASCO, AMALIA V. CATAYLO, PEPITO P. FORBES, BERNIE M. BAUTISTA AND MAXIMO A. MENA, complainants, vs. ATTY. RICARDO C. PILARES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11301 — Norberta Aletre, Dahlia B. Soriano, Editha D. Susi, Thelma R. Velasco, Amalia V. Cataylo, Pepito P. Forbes, Bernie M. Bautista and Maximo A. Mena v. Atty. Ricardo C. Pilares
In their Complaint, 1 dated September 9, 2013, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), Norberta Aletre, Dahlia B. Soriano, Editha Susi, Thelma Velasco, Amalia Cataylo, Pepito Forbes, Bernie Bautista, and Maximo Mena (complainants) charged respondent Atty. Ricardo Pilares (Atty. Pilares) of violating the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court.
One Rafael Pilares (Rafael) was the registered owner of a 10,000 square meter parcel of land (subject land) located at Purok 4, Barangay Culiat, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 216103, 2 a reconstituted title. The said title originated from Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614.
Complainants, on the other hand, claim that they were the rightful owners of the subject land pursuant to an unregistered deed of sale, 3 which was covered by TCT No. T-498. 4 They alleged that sometime in 2012, the Heirs of Rafael executed two (2) special powers of attorneys authorizing Atty. Pilares to file civil complaints against all illegal occupants of the subject land and to facilitate the sale of the same. Consequently, Atty. Pilares filed cases for unlawful detainer and declaration of nullity of title against complainants.
Meanwhile, Atty. Pilares entered into a Memorandum to Sell 5(memorandum) with Samahang Masigasig Ka (SAMAKA) involving the subject land so that the same could be included in the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) of Quezon City.
Complainants claimed that Atty. Pilares and SAMAKA used the memorandum to collect inequitable membership fees, equity, survey fees, and other invalid fees; that Atty. Pilares did not have right to enforce the same because TCT No. 216103 was invalid as the subdivision plan therein pertained to another location; and that TCT No. 216103 originated from Decree No. 6667, which referred to a completely different parcel of land.
Complainants further asserted that Atty. Pilares issued a certification authorizing the re-blocking and clearing of the road ways, alleys and open spaces in the subject land. Accordingly, on November 29, 2012, Atty. Pilares, in conspiracy with the Task Force for the Control, Prevention and Removal of Illegal Structures and Squatting (Task Force COPRISS) of Quezon City illegally demolished their houses built on the subject land without a court order. Complainants asserted that these illegal acts of Atty. Pilares warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
In his Answer, 6 dated October 1, 2013, Atty. Pilares countered that the present administrative case is merely a harassment suit as the complainants similarly filed the same complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, which was dismissed; that the present case improperly assailed the validity of TCT No. 216103, which could not been done in an administrative case; that the Supreme Court, in G.R. Nos. 102961-62 and 154080, already declared that OCT No. 614, from where TCT No. 216103 was derived, was binding and valid; and that his client merely exerted his ownership over the subject land when Task Force COPRISS demolished their houses.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 7 dated July 25, 2014, Investigating Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva (Investigating Commissioner) recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. He wrote that the present complaint was assailing the validity of TCT No. 216103, which could not be allowed in an administrative case. The Investigating Commissioner opined that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the validity of OCT No. 614, from where TCT No. 216103 was derived. It observed that Atty. Pilares did not participate in the demolition of complainants' houses and that the demolition was valid under Section 28 (1) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7270. Finally, the Investigating Commissioner underscored that complainants failed to prove that Atty. Pilares illegally collected fees because the receipts that they presented did not even contain his name. CAIHTE
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-500, 8 dated June 7, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, finding that the same was fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws.
Hence, the records of the case were elevated to this Court.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the Investigating Commissioner and recommendation of the Board.
It is a well-established rule that for a charge to warrant a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the presumption that the lawyer is innocent of the charge prevails. 9
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the complaint lacks merit. First, the complaint indirectly assails the validity of TCT No. 216103 in an administrative proceeding. It is a well settled rule that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding. 10 Moreover, as properly observed by the investigating commissioner, the Supreme Court had already ruled on the validity of OCT No. 614, from where TCT No. 216103 was derived.
Second, complainants did not prove that Atty. Pilares participated in an illegal demolition. The subject land was covered by the CMP. Under the CMP, the landowner executes a contract to sell the property in favor of the community association. In turn, the community association executes an agreement with the Social Housing Finance Corporation for the collection and remittance of shares in monthly amortization from its member-borrowers, and is under obligation to keep tab of paid and unpaid amortization of its member-borrowers. In the event a member-borrower defaults, the community association has the responsibility to find a qualified substitute who shall assume the obligations of the member-borrower in default. 11 aScITE
In this case, the Heirs of Rafael were the legitimate owners of the subject land and they transferred the same to SAMAKA under the CMP. As the complainants were occupants of the subject land, they were required to pay the association and amortization fees to continually occupy the land. Regrettably, they reneged on the obligations inspite of several notices. They did not even attend the series of meeting concerning the affected settlers. 12 Moreover, complainants' houses were blocking the roadways, alley ways and open spaces. Under Section 28 (1) of R.A. 7270, 13 demolition could be effected even without a court order. Atty. Pilares merely issued a certification that the subject land indeed required reblocking.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the attached Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved.
The complaint against Atty. Ricardo C. Pilares is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." DETACa
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2. Id. at 21.
3. Id. at 154.
4. Id. at 157.
5. Id. at 24.
6. Id. at 121.
7. Id. at 584-596.
8. Id. at 98.
9. Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-633 (2004).
10. Sampaco v. Hadji Serad Mingca Lantud, 669 Phil. 304 (2011).
11. Eugenio v. Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association, 650 Phil. 166 (2010).
12. Rollo, p. 603.
13. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;