SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13137. February 23, 2022.]
ERIC APASAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. EGMEDIO J. CASTILLON, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 February 2022 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13137 (Eric Apasan v. Atty. Egmedio J. Castillon, Jr.). — This resolves the Complaint 1 filed by Eric A. Apasan before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging respondent Atty. Egmedio J. Castillon, Jr. (respondent) with violation of Rule 12.02, Canon 12; Rule 10.3, Canon 10; and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Complainant claims that respondent continued to consecutively file several pleadings in order to frustrate the implementation of the writ of execution in a case entitled, Heirs of Maria Montellano-Martinez v. Cristobal Basco, Melecio de Jaro, Alfredo Alla, and Tirso de Lara despite the issuance of an Entry of Judgment 2 on May 19, 2009 by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). These include, among others, a petition 3 for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property filed on October 12, 2009 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calapan City and subsequent appeal 4 filed on April 12, 2014 to the Court of Appeals (CA); and a petition 5 for annulment of decision filed in September 2011 before the DARAB and subsequent petition for review 6 dated December 18, 2012 before the CA and petition for review 7 dated September 2015 before the Supreme Court.
In his Answer, respondent argued that he was merely fighting for the rights and interests of his clients in accordance with law and applicable procedure and defending them on a claim founded on a void title.
Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation 8 dated March 15, 2017, Investigating Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera found the numerous filings made by respondent to reflect a propensity to delay the wheels of justice despite the fact that the DARAB decision had long attained finality. He recommended that the penalty of a one (1) year suspension from the practice of law be meted out against respondent, with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
IBP Board of Governors' Resolution
In its Resolution 9 and Extended Resolution, 10 the IBP Board of Governors reversed the findings of the investigating commissioner and recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed. CAIHTE
The Board reasoned that it had essentially weighed which, as between Rule 12.04, Canon 12 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18, was more primordial considering the circumstances of the present case. In so doing, the Board held that there is no showing of any bad faith or ill motive on the part of respondent, and that his actions can be viewed as a lawyer's zealous defense for his client's cause. The Board also observed that in respondent's filings before courts and administrative agencies, the consent and conformity of his clients were apparent. As such, the Board viewed respondent's actions to be at the behest of his clients, within the parameters of allowable judicial review processes and premised on his clients' supposed good faith belief that complainant's titles are fake.
THE COURT'S RULING
We reverse the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to dismiss the Complaint against respondent. Instead, we reinstate and adopt the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
The Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the Court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 11 In disbarment proceedings, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence, 12 or that "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." 13 Accordingly, complainant must show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which his claims are based; otherwise, respondent is not obliged to prove his exception or defense. 14
Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR provides that "[a] lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes." On the other hand, Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR prohibits lawyers from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, in connection with the lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.
The records show that respondent was engaged as counsel for the group of respondents in the case before the DARAB, namely Cristobal Basco, Melecio de Jaro, Alfredo Alla, and Tirso de Lara (collectively, Basco Group), after the same had already been decided against them. Records also show that respondent was engaged to represent his clients in availing of remedies to seek relief from the DARAB judgment on the contention that the title of complainant's client was void. Hence, the first of respondent's filings on behalf of his clients was a petition for relief from judgment 15 dated January 2, 2007 before the DARAB Regional Adjudicator. As mentioned, this was resolved with finality on May 19, 2009.
His later filings in the DARAB, RTC, CA, and this Court were all initiated when the DARAB case had already attained finality. Notably, all of respondent's filings, save for one pending appeal before the CA, were either denied or dismissed by the concerned tribunals, including this Court. Even then, respondent insists on the cause of his clients based on the theory that complainant's title is fake or spurious.
We take exception to the IBP Board of Governors' pronouncements that "negative court rulings do not per se equate that his resort to judicial remedies automatically makes him liable for violation of Rule 12 of Canon 12 of the [CPR]" 16 and that a contrary interpretation would "place a lawyer in an untenable position of ensuring positive results for all the cases he handles." 17 These statements are not in touch with the context of the allegations against respondent. In the first place, the several judicial and administrative actions prepared and filed by respondent were made after the DARAB case had already attained finality, which finality included an adverse decision against respondent's clients insofar as the petition for relief from judgment is concerned.
To the Court, these actions by respondent serve no other purpose but to further prolong and impede the rightful execution of the DARAB's decision in favor of complainant.
It is also apparent that the IBP Board of Governors overlooked complainant's allegations of forum-shopping committed by respondent, as there was no discussion pertaining to a violation of Rule 12.02, Canon 12, which prohibits lawyers from filing multiple actions arising from the same cause. This should have been a focal point as complainant repeatedly asserted, with documentary support, that in all initiatory filings on behalf of his clients, there was no mention of any of the pending and decided administrative or judicial actions involving the same issue or subject matter.
It is of no moment that, as noted by the IBP Board of Governors, these filings were with the consent and conformity of respondent's clients, considering that lawyers themselves are prohibited from filing multiple actions arising from the same cause, pursuant to Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of the CPR. As respondent was fully aware that all his filings subsequent to the petition for relief from judgment involved the same issues, as in fact he admits that these actions were based on the theory that the complainant's titles are fake and spurious, he should have refrained from engaging in deliberate forum shopping or, at the very least, properly advised his clients to comply with their undertaking to declare the pendency of cases arising from the same cause.
All told, we find the IBP Board of Governors' resolution lacking in factual and legal basis to support its recommendation to dismiss the complaint against respondent. On the other hand, the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD is supported by the evidence on record and prevailing law and jurisprudence on legal ethics and professional responsibility.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Egmedio J. Castillon, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon receipt of this resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. DETACa
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon Atty. Castillon's receipt of a copy of this Resolution. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Castillon as a member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-12. Written in Filipino as Salaysay Reklamo.
2. Id. at 55.
3. Id. at 56-60.
4. Id. at 64-68.
5. Id. at 69-79.
6. Id. at 96-102.
7. Id. at 148-158.
8. Rollo, vol. 2, pp. 2-4.
9. Id. at 1.
10. Id. at 5-8.
11. Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020; and BSATower Condominium Corp. v. Reyes, 833 Phil. 588 (2018).
12. See Alag v. Senupe, 842 Phil. 1 (2018).
13. RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 6.
14. Alag v. Senupe, supra.
15. Rollo, pp. 37-41.
16. Rollo, vol. 2, p. 7.
17. Id.