THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12428. March 18, 2019.]
ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, REPRESENTED BY MYRNA FELY RESURRECCION-CRUZ, complainant, vs.ATTY. ARLAN CASTAÑEDA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12428 (Alpha Insurance and Surety Company, Incorporated, represented by Myrna Fely Resurreccion-Cruz vs. Atty. Arlan Castañeda). — Before this Court is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Alpha Insurance and Surety Company, Incorporated (Alpha), represented by Myrna Fely Resurreccion-Cruz (complainant), against Atty. Arlan Castañeda (respondent) for misconduct and violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
In the Complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the complainant alleged that on April 23, 2009, Alpha, a bonding company accredited by the Court, issued bail bonds for the temporary liberty of accused Willy Quilang, Francis Quilang, and Ireneo Nepomoceno, all accused in Criminal Case Nos. 5163, 5164 and 1036, pending at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Ilagan City, Isabela. The total premiums amounted to P245,000.00. The accused advanced the payment of P90,000.00 and, thereafter, executed a promissory note amounting to more than P155,000.00. Accused then made an additional P35,000.00 payment, leaving P120,000.00 as balance. 2
However, when the accused failed to satisfy the remaining balance, the complainant attempted to cancel the bail bonds. Because of the pleadings and assurances of the respondent, who is the counsel of the accused, the complainant did not push through in canceling the bond. Instead, Sharon Morales (Morales), the company's representative, and respondent executed a Deed of Agreement, wherein the latter guaranteed the payment of the amount of P120,000.00 to be paid within two (2) weeks from the execution of the said agreement. 3 Thus, the complainant was compelled to file a complaint against the respondent and several others when the latter failed to honor and comply with the agreement. 4 CAIHTE
The RTC of Cauayan City, Isabela issued an Order on June 30, 2015, directing the respondent and the other defendants therein to jointly and solidarily pay the complainant P120,000.00 representing the remaining balance with legal interest thereon, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. 5
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC order, but the same was denied. 6
In his Answer, the respondent admitted that he executed a Deed of Assignment with the complainant through its representative, Morales. He, likewise, admitted that a complaint for breach of contract was filed against him wherein he was adjudged liable. He stated that his case is now pending before the Court of Appeals (CA). Respondent argued that the present Complaint should be dismissed because: (1) there is a pending appeal with the CA regarding his obligation under the Deed of Assignment; (2) the present case is a mere harassment; and (3) a Board Resolution authorizing the complainant to file the present Complaint is wanting. 7
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
In his Report and Recommendation 8 dated June 22, 2017, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline found that the respondent did not violate Canon 1 of the CPR. The dispositive portion of the Report and Recommendation reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of Complainant to prove by preponderance of evidence the charges against Respondent, it is hereby recommended that the present complaint be dismissed.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 9
Subsequently, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution dated May 3, 2018, to wit:
CBD Case No. 16-4974Alpha Insurance and Surety, Incorporated
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the complaint. 10
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public's faith in the legal profession. 11 When lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the rights of their client, but also of their colleagues and offends due administration of justice, appropriate disciplinary measures and proceedings are available such as reprimand, suspension or even disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts.
Complainant argued that the respondent's failure to pay under the Deed of Agreement is misconduct deserving of an administrative penalty. However, the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent did not deliberately refuse to pay the complainant. In fact, the respondent has raised before the trial court his defenses for failing to pay under the Deed of Agreement. He even filed an appeal with the CA questioning the judgment of the RTC, which found him liable. DETACa
Furthermore, as observed by the Investigating Commissioner, the instant disbarment complaint is being used by the complainant as a tool to collect from the respondent. The Court, however, emphasizes that a case for disbarment or suspension is not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. 12
In the case of Heenan v. Atty. Espejo, 13 the Court did not sustain the IBP's recommendation ordering therein respondent lawyer to return the money to the complainant. The Court held:
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondent's administrative liability. Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers do not involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. The only question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Thus, this Court cannot rule on the issue of the amount of money that should be returned to the complainant. 14 (Citations omitted)
It must be stressed that a proceeding for suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of the respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the bar. 15
Finally, the records of the case do not show that the respondent had violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which provides:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In this case, the complainant failed to establish that the respondent committed acts of misconduct, dishonesty, falsehood, or had disobeyed laws or orders of the court. In the absence of such proof, the complaint against the respondent must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution dated May 3, 2018 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Accordingly, the complaint against respondent Atty. Arlan Castañeda in CBD Case No. 16-4974 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on leave; Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.) aDSIHc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4A.
2.Id. at 2-3.
3.Id. at 3.
4.Id. at 4.
5. Penned by Executive Judge Raul V. Babaran; id. at 7-11.
6.Id. at 12-13.
7.Id. at 20-35.
8.Id. at 82-86.
9.Id. at 86.
10.Id. at 80.
11.Spouses Amatorio vs. Attys. Dy Yap and Siton-Yap, 755 Phil. 336, 345 (2015).
12. Atty. Yumul-Espina vs. Atty. Tabaquero, A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016, 803 SCRA 571, 579.
13. A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013, 711 SCRA 290.
14. Id. at 537.
15. Cristobal v. Atty. Renta, 743 Phil. 145, 148 (2014).