FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11880. January 19, 2018.]
MARCING ARINA, BHONG JIMENEZ, BOBBY AQUINO, ENRICO ATANGAN, SALVADOR BUENSALIDA, JOCELYN LOBO, EDDIE MAZO, CARMEN JIMENEZ, AND CATHERINE TRAMPE, complainants,vs. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 19, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 11880 — Marcing Arina, Bhong Jimenez, Bobby Aquino, Enrico Atangan, Salvador Buensalida, Jocelyn Lobo, Eddie Mazo, Carmen Jimenez, and Catherine Trampe vs. Atty. Leonardo M. Real
Before Us is a disbarment case against Atty. Leonardo M. Real (respondent) for alleged violation of his Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 1
This administrative case stemmed from a case for unlawful detainer filed by respondent for his clients, the Kapatiran ng Samahan ng mga Maralita sa Teresa, Inc., against Marcing Arina, Bhong Jimenez, Bobby Aquino, Enrico Atangan, Salvador Buensalida, Jocelyn Lobo (Lobo), Eddie Mazo, Carmen Jimenez, and Catherine Trampe (complainants) on May 18, 2010. Summons 2 were served to the complainants but despite receipt of the same, only Lobo and two others filed their respective Answers. The said Answers, however, failed to tender an issue and admitted the material allegation in the complaint, hence, respondent filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading. 3
On February 1, 2011, Municipal Circuit Trial Court issued a Decision 4 in favor of respondent's clients, ordering herein complainants to vacate the subject property, restore the possession thereof to respondent's clients, and to pay the reasonable rental from May 18, 2010 until the subject property is vacated and surrendered to respondent's clients. 5
A writ of execution was then issued, which was duly served to the complainants. 6 As evidenced by the Turn-over of Possession 7 dated February 2, 2012, respondent's clients received the possession of the subject premises in question.
A day after the turn-over of possession of the subject property to respondent's clients, complainants, excluding Enrico Atangan and Trampe re-entered into the premises and rebuilt shanties therein. 8
This prompted respondent, for his clients, to file a petition for indirect contempt against the erring complainants. On November 11, 2013, a Decision 9 was rendered, the contempt court found some of the complainants guilty and thus ordered them to pay the fine of P5,000 within five days and to vacate and dismantle/demolish their houses in the premises of the subject property. 10
The Complaint 11 essentially alleged that respondent did not produce any evidence to prove his clients' claim. Complainants also averred that there is no truth as to any of the claim of respondent's clients. 12 Conspiracy between respondent and Judge Socorro Almazan Vista to railroad the case was also alleged, hence, respondent was able to get a favorable decision. 13
In its Report and Recommendation 14 dated July 13, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found no merit on the complaint. According to the IBP-CBD, all the issues being complained of in this disbarment case by the complainants has been thoroughly resolved by the ejectment court and there is no indication of irregularities committed during the trial of the case and the implementation of the decision.
More importantly for this case, there is no showing that respondent committed any unlawful act nor any act in violation of the Lawyer's Oath or the CPR. The IBP-CBD further found that respondent was merely doing his duty as a lawyer to pursue and defend his clients' cause. 15
The IBP-CBD recommended thus:
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the charge against [respondent] is hereby recommended to be dismissed. 16
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-607 17 dated November 29, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD's recommendation thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. 18 (Italics in the original)
No motion for reconsideration nor petition for review was filed to question the same. 19
The case is now before this Court for final resolution.
After a perusal of the records of this case, We agree with the IBP-CBD and the Board of Governors that the charges against the respondent are unfounded. Apart from complainant's bare allegations, no evidence was presented nor was there any showing from the factual circumstances surrounding this case that respondent committed any unlawful act or any violation of his oath as a lawyer and the CPR. That an unfavorable judgment was brought upon the complainants cannot be imputed against respondent as counsel of the winning party. Indeed, the factual backdrop of the case only shows that respondent merely discharged his duty as his clients' counsel, nothing more. aScITE
Further, aside from the allegation of conspiracy with the judge and railroading of the case, all the other issues raised by the complainants pertain to the merits of the unlawful detainer case, which, as also found by the IBP-CBD, have already been sufficiently addressed by the ejectment court.
Basic is the rule that in any case, "[m]ere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof." 20 Time and again, We have held:
[T]hat 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. Thus, in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. 21 (Citations omitted)
Evidently, in this case, complainants failed to discharge such burden.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to ADOPT Resolution No. XXII-2016-607 dated November 29, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, this administrative case against Atty. Leonardo M. Real is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-9.
2.Id. at 29.
3.Id. at 580.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Socorro Almazan Vista; id. at 367-368.
5.Id. at 580.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 419.
8.Id. at 580.
9.Id. at 250-253.
10. Id. at 580.
11.Id. at 1-9.
12.Id. at 579.
13.Id. at 2-3.
14.Id. at 579-582.
15.Id. at 581.
16.Id. at 582.
17.Id. at 577-578.
18.Id. at 577.
19.Id. at 583.
20.Cruz-Villanueva v. Atty. Rivera, 537 Phil. 409, 415 (2006).
21.Dumanlag v. Intong, A.C. No. 8638, October 10, 2016, 805 SCRA 489, 497.