SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13057. September 27, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4593]
MARNIE BALDO, BASILIO LIPAWEN AND FRANCISCO RAMOS, complainants, vs.ATTY. ENGRACIO M. ICASIANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13057 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4593] (Marnie Baldo, Basilio Lipawen and Francisco Ramos v. Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano). — Before the Court is an Affidavit-Complaint 1 filed by complainants Marnie Baldo (Baldo), Basilio Lipawen, and Francisco Ramos (collectively, complainants) against respondent Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano (respondent) for violation of Rules 1.01, 10.01, and 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
On April 14, 2015, the complainants alleged that: (i) complainants are neighbors; (ii) in a civil case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Declaration of Nullity of Title, Injunction, Damages and other Reliefs, complainant Baldo was one of the plaintiffs while respondent was the counsel of some of the defendants; (ii) in the civil case, respondent submitted falsified certifications purportedly executed by officers from the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources; (iii) respondent tried to mislead the RTC by submitting these falsified documents; and (iv) in so doing, respondent violated Rules 1.01, 10.01, and 10.02 of the CPR. 2
For his part, respondent denied the allegations against him. He denied any participation in the alleged falsification of documents, assuming they were indeed falsified. He maintained that on their faces, the documents looked legitimately and properly executed; that he merely presented before the court the documents furnished to him by his clients; and that he cannot be faulted for relying on the presumed regularity in the execution of the documents. 3
On December 10, 2018, the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. 4 He found that complainants failed to substantiate their allegations. According to him, respondent simply submitted to the court the questioned documents that were provided to him by his clients; and that it cannot be inferred from the documents themselves that they were falsified. 5 ETHIDa
On January 26, 2020, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution 6 adopting the Report and Recommendation 7 of the Investigating Commissioner. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint.
The issue is whether respondent violated the provisions of the CPR.
The Court affirms the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution 8 dated January 26, 2020.
Complainants failed to present clearly preponderant evidence that respondent violated Rules 1.01, 10.01 and 10.02 of the CPR. It is well-settled that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges proffered against him until the contrary is proved. 9 Clear preponderance of evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar. 10 The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to show that the Court should exercise its disciplinary power towards a lawyer. 11
Rules 1.01, 10.01, and 10.02 of the CPR read:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Except for their allegations, which remained largely unsubstantiated, complainants had no other evidence that respondent either tried to mislead the RTC or had any participation in the alleged falsification. Complainants failed to discharge the burden of proof required for disciplining an attorney.
Considering that complainants failed to discharge the burden of proof to justify the exercise of the Court's disciplinary power over an attorney, the Court dismisses the complaint.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as adopted and approved by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. The complaint against respondent Atty. Engracio M. Icasiano is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-8.
2.Id. at 2-4.
3.Id. at 40 and 65.
4.Id. at 102-106; penned by Investigating Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera.
5.Id. at 105.
6.Id. at 100-101.
7.Id. at 102-106.
8.Id. at 100-101.
9.Pefianco v. Atty. Garcia, A.C. No. 11727 (Notice), September 6, 2017.
10.Id.
11.Id.