SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11133. January 30, 2017.]
CHRISTOPHER A. AMOMONPON, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY. MARLON C. CABILAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 January 2017 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11133: CHRISTOPHER A. AMOMONPON, SR. v. ATTY. MARLON C. CABILAN
Lawyers must obey the law. They cannot, after violating the provisions of their lease contract, use force to reacquire possession of the leased premises. They should know that the proper remedy is to file a case in court. The license to practice should never be used as an excuse to intimidate those who disagree with them.
This case involves a Complaint 1 praying for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on respondent Atty. Marlon C. Cabilan for acts unbecoming of an officer of the court and for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent Atty. Marlon C. Cabilan (Atty. Cabilan) is President of Adler Child Development Center, Inc. (Adler). Adler leased a building owned by complainant Christopher Amomonpon, Sr. (Amomonpon), to be used as a private school. The lease contract was for five (5) years beginning May 15, 2011 until May 15, 2016, and was later amended on November 15, 2011 to shorten the term of lease to three (3) years, from May 15, 2011 to May 15, 2014. 2 The amended lease contract contained a provision on breach of contract or default in rental payment:
BREACH OR DEFAULT:
Any violation of the terms provided for in this Contract on the part of the LESSEE or LESSOR shall be sufficient ground for the termination of the contract of lease by the aggrieved party.
In the event LESSEE fails to pay the rentals provided for herein or refuses to vacate the leased premises after notice to vacate due to valid causes or reason is served, or LESSEE deserts or vacates the leased premises before the expiration of the lease, LESSOR shall have the right, without need of court order, as the LESSEE hereby expressly authorizes the LESSOR, to enter the leased premises and take possession thereof, either by force or otherwise, without being liable for prosecution therefor and to terminate immediately this Contract with full compensation for the duration of or the term of this Contract. The LESSOR shall take possession of all properties inside the leased premises and sell them without public bidding, the proceeds of which shall be used to pay and satisfy all unpaid bills and liabilities of the LESSEE. 3 (Emphasis supplied)
Sometime in October 2012, Amomonpon threatened to close the school if Adler did not immediately pay the delayed monthly rentals. Because of its persistent disagreement with Amomonpon, Adler decided to vacate the building within a week after the graduation of its students, tentatively set on March 29, 2013. Adler also bound itself to pay all obligations due before moving out. 4
On March 7, 2013, Amomonpon locked the school gate and refused to open it. The following day, Adler filed a case before the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City against Amomonpon for damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Because Amomonpon committed to keep the school gate open, the trial court did not issue the temporary restraining order. Thus, the school remained open from March 12, 2013. 5
Amomonpon, through his lawyer, sent Adler a letter demanding that it vacate the building within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. Despite receipt of the letter on April 12, 2013, and even five (5) days thereafter, Adler refused to move out of the building. 6
Amomonpon forcibly took possession of the school on April 23, 2013. He "drove away the school security guard and posted his own security guard, co[r]doned off the whole area, forb[ade] the pupils, the parents, school personnel[,] and the public from going near the building." 7 He closed the entire school and padlocked the gate and the roll-up doors of the premises under the breach or default provision of the amended lease contract. 8
On June 17, 2013, Atty. Cabilan, with the help of hired men, destroyed the padlocks of the roll-up doors and removed Adler's properties from the building. 9 acEHCD
On November 25, 2013, Amomonpon filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines a Complaint-Affidavit 10 against respondent Atty. Cabilan. He alleged that respondent, "with the use of force and violence, willfully, deliberately[,] and unlawfully destroyed the padlocks of the building and removed [the] properties . . . against [his] will." 11 Complainant also claimed that respondent, together with his wife, instructed four (4) other persons "to destroy the padlocks of the building using a hard metal object." 12
Complainant asserted that aside from the four (4) persons tasked to destroy the padlocks and remove the properties, respondent also had armed men patrolling the premises. 13 According to complainant, respondent's acts constituted grave misconduct and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. 14 Thus, respondent should be administratively disciplined by this Court. 15
On November 25, 2013, respondent was directed to submit his answer. 16 The Order was returned, unserved, to the Commission with the notation, "RTS-Moved Out." Another Order 17 was issued on February 28, 2014 directing complainant to submit respondent's present address. 18 Complainant filed his Compliance 19 on April 24, 2014, stating respondent's new known address.
On May 29, 2014, Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor (Commissioner Villamor) issued the Order 20 directing respondent to file his answer, setting the mandatory conference on June 24, 2014, and ordering the parties to submit their mandatory conference briefs. 21
Only respondent appeared on the scheduled mandatory conference. Nonetheless, Commissioner Villamor ordered that the parties submit their position papers, and the case would then be deemed submitted for report and recommendation. 22
Complainant filed a Manifestation 23 dated July 14, 2014 explaining his absence in the mandatory conference. He claimed that his absence was justified because he received the Order setting the June 24, 2014 mandatory conference only on July 4, 2014. 24
Respondent filed both his Counter-Affidavit 25 and Position Paper 26 on August 11, 2014. He claimed that complainant had been constantly harassing Adler by threatening to close the building whenever the school was late in paying its rent. 27 He alleged that complainant interfered in school operations and tarnished the school's reputation. 28
As a defense, respondent argued that Adler is the legal possessor of the leased building and has "the right to be respected in its possession, and [it] can even exclude the owner." 29 Thus, "when [complainant] attempted to wrest possession of the building by padlocking the gate and roll up doors, the school was justified, under the doctrine of self-help . . . to use necessary force to repel the aggression." 30
In its Report and Recommendation 31 dated October 24, 2014, the Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Commissioner Villamor found that respondent committed gross misconduct when he forcibly opened the building on June 17, 2013. Respondent violated their amended lease contract, which authorized complainant to close the leased premises upon respondent's failure to promptly pay the rentals or to vacate the building. 32 Further:
As a lawyer, Respondent should have been the first to respect the contract he entered into. As a lawyer, he should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility imposes on all lawyers the duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. By taking upon himself to forcibly enter the leased premises by destroying the padlock without the necessary order from the court, Respondent arrogated upon himself the role that should have been exclusively belonged to the court. 33
The recommendation reads:
WHEREFORE, finding Respondent for having violated the provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility[,] it is hereby recommended that Atty. Marlon Cabilan be suspended in the practice of law for Three (3) months with a warning that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. 34 (Emphasis in the original)
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Commission:
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2015-031
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and for arrogating unto himself the role that exclusively belongs to the Court, thereby violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Marlon C. Cabilan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. 35 (Emphasis in the original) SDHTEC
This Court resolves whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his Counter-Affidavit and Position Paper, respondent did not deny that he instructed hired men to destroy the padlocks of the roll-up doors of the building, which Adler previously leased from complainant. He did not deny that he ordered his companions to enter the building and remove Adler's properties. However, he claimed that his acts were justified under the doctrine of self-help embodied in Article 429 of the Civil Code:
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Respondent's defense of self-help is unavailing. The doctrine of self-help may be invoked to repel unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of property, provided that it is "exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession." 36 In German Management & Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: 37
[T]he doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession. . . . When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of property. This is clear from Article 536 of the Civil Code which states, "(I)n no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing." 38
When complainant took possession of the leased building and padlocked the gate and the roll-up doors on April 23, 2013, respondent was dispossessed of the property. This was when respondent could have invoked the principle of self-help, and not on June 17, 2013, almost two (2) months after the dispossession.
At the time respondent destroyed the padlocks and entered the property, he had already lost possession of the leased building. Even if he believed that he was the lawful possessor, his remedy was to invoke the aid of the court to recover Adler's property. He cannot, and should not, take matters into his own hands.
The April 23, 2013 closure was not the first time respondent was deprived of the building's possession. Complainant also locked the school gate without Adler's consent on March 7, 2013. At that time, Adler resorted to judicial process by filing a case for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Although the temporary restraining order was not issued, Adler did obtain a favorable result when complainant promised to open the school gate. The agreeable outcome of Adler's case should have encouraged respondent or Adler to again invoke the aid of the court.
Moreover, respondent was well aware of the breach or default provision of the amended lease contract, which he signed as Adler's representative. As a lawyer, respondent is presumed to exercise due diligence before entering into the contract. If he found the terms of the contract to be unfair for his principal, he should have negotiated for more just terms or he should not have signed it altogether. Thus, respondent cannot claim that he is the legal possessor of the building when he committed the acts in the Complaint.
Respondent's acts violate Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.
RULE 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
In Catu v. Atty. Rellosa: 39
Lawyers are servants of the law, vires legis, men of the law. Their paramount duty to society is to obey the law and promote respect for it. To underscore the primacy and importance of this duty, it is enshrined as the first canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. 40 (Citations omitted)
In Jimenez v. Francisco: 41
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and obedience to the law, on the part of the public. Rule 1.0, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers. AScHCD
xxx xxx xxx
Membership in the legal profession 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. "To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that they live by the law." 42 (Citations omitted)
In view of the rulings of this Court in several cases for violation of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent's penalty is increased to six (6) months' suspension from the practice of law. 43
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marlon C. Cabilan is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is DIRECTED to file a manifestation of when his suspension starts with this Court and all other courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he entered his appearance. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that any similar future act will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in Atty. Cabilan's personal record with the Office of the Bar Confidant, and a copy be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the land.
SO ORDERED." HESIcT
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-14.
2.Id. at 233 and 236, IBP Report and Recommendation.
3.Id. at 18-19, Amended Lease Contract.
4.Id. at 236, IBP Report and Recommendation.
5.Id. at 236-237.
6.Id. at 237.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 236-237.
9.Id. at 232, IBP Report and Recommendation.
10.Id. at 3-14.
11.Id. at 5.
12.Id. at 6.
13.Id. at 6-8.
14.Id. at 13.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 169, Commission on Bar Discipline Order dated November 25, 2013.
17. Id. at 171.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 172.
20. Id. at 176.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 178, Commission on Bar Discipline Order dated June 24, 2014.
23. Id. at 179.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 185-190.
26. Id. at 193-199.
27. Id. at 194-195, Atty. Marlon C. Cabilan's Position Paper.
28. Id. at 195.
29. Id. at 190, Counter-Affidavit.
30. Id. at 198, Atty. Marlon C. Cabilan's Position Paper.
31. Id. at 232-238.
32. Id. at 237.
33. Id. at 237-238.
34. Id. at 238.
35. Id. at 230, IBP Board of Governors Notice of Resolution dated January 30, 2015.
36. German Management & Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 258 Phil. 289, 294 (1989) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
37. 258 Phil. 289 (1989) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
38. Id. at 294.
39. 569 Phil. 539 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
40. Id. at 550.
41. A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 215 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
42. Id. at 229-230.
43. See Ong v. Delos Santos, A.C. No. 10179, March 4, 2014, 717 SCRA 663 [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc], Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Gumba, 674 Phil. 317 (2011) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division], Spouses Tejada v. Atty. Palaña, 557 Phil. 517 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division], and Dr. Sanchez v. Atty. Somoso, 459 Phil. 209 (2003) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].