Barsobia v. Abubacar

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9198. January 17, 2023.][Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3479]

ARTHURO S. BARSOBIA, petitioner, vs.ATTY. PENDATUN C. ABUBACAR, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 17, 2023which reads as follows: HTcADC

"A.C. No. 9198 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3479] (Arthuro S. Barsobia v. Atty. Pendatun C. Abubacar). — Before the Court is an administrative case initiated by Arthuro S. Barsobia (Arthuro) against Atty. Pendatun C. Abubacar (Atty. Pendatun) for the latter's alleged grave misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 10 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, 2 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 3

The Antecedents

On October 5, 2006, Arthuro filed a complaint for grave abuse of authority (administrative case) before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (Ombudsman) against Sabdullah Abubacar (Sabdullah), 4 who was then the Regional Director (RD) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) in Region 10, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City. 5

According to Sabdullah, the allegations of Arthuro in his complaint before the Ombudsman were unfounded. Resultantly, its filing discredited his honor and reputation as an honest and faithful public official. Thus, on December 18, 2006, he filed a Complaint 6 to claim damages (civil case) against Arthuro before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur, Marawi City, Branch 10. 7

At this juncture, it bears noting that Atty. Pendatun, Sabdullah's brother, 8 served as the latter's counsel in both the administrative and civil cases.

On August 17, 2011, in relation to the civil case, Arthuro received a Pre-Trial Brief for the Plaintiff 9 led by Sabdullah through Atty. Pendatun. Paragraph 4 thereof alleged:

4. That the office of the Ombudsman after judiciously look [sic] to the existence of probable cause failed to merit the imputation [sic] thereby dismissing all those cases which were found to be maliciously hatched by the defendant. 10

Thus, on August 20, 2011, Arthuro requested for a status update of his complaint before the Ombudsman to verify the truthfulness of the aforesaid allegation. 11 In an August 22, 2011 Certification, 12 the Ombudsman informed Arthuro that his complaint is still pending in their office for a fact-finding investigation. 13

Consequently, on August 23, 2011, Arthuro immediately filed the present Complaint 14 against Atty. Pendatun for fabricating an allegation in his client's pre-trial brief. He contended that Atty. Pendatun's act of lying is a breach of the peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. 15

Finally, Arthuro averred that Atty. Pendatun, as Sabdullah's counsel, maliciously filed the civil case against him in Marawi City — considering that Atty. Pendatun is a commissioned notary public in Iligan City, Lanao del Norte and that he was aware of Sabdullah's residence in Phase 1, NHA, Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City. In other words, Arthuro argued that the filing of a civil case against him in a venue far from his residence is malicious and is a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 16

For his part, Atty. Pendatun averred the following defenses in his Comment: 17

As to the allegation of lying in his client's pre-trial brief, he maintained that allegations made on a lawyer's pleading are just allegations as confided by a client, the falsity or truthfulness of which are matters proven during trial. Thus, a lawyer who alleges the same does not and cannot guarantee their truthfulness. 18

As to the allegation of malicious filing of a civil case in a venue far from the residence of the defendant, he contended that while Sabdullah, the plaintiff in said case, frequently stayed in Cagayan de Oro City due to his occupation as the RD of the DENR-EMB therein, his permanent address is still in Basak Malutlut, Marawi City — where his conjugal house is located and of which he is a registered voter. Thus, Atty. Pendatun stated that this is a clear manifestation of Arthuro's arrogance and ignorance on procedural rules which he has demonstrated up to this Court. 19

Report and Recommendation of the

In a March 17, 2014 Report and Recommendation, 20 the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended Atty. Pendatun's suspension from the practice of law for six months. The fallo thereof reads:

Under the established facts, it is recommended that due to the deliberate falsehood and misleading representation of what the situation was at the time of the filing of a required pleading, [i.e.,] pre-trial brief, that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with warning that a similar offense in the future may likely merit a more severe sanction.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 21

In a February 22, 2015 Resolution, 22 the IBP's Board of Governors adopted with modification the IBP-CBD's recommendation. The fallo thereof reads:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex 'A', finding Respondent's deliberate falsehood and misleading presentation of the actual situation at the time of the filing of the required pleading. Hence, Atty. Pendatun C. Ab[u]bacar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.23

Hence, the present case.

Issue

Did Atty. Pendatun violate the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 10 of the CPR, Sec. 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?

Our Ruling

The complaint is partially meritorious.

"Time and again, this Court has emphasized the need to regulate the legal profession with the goal of raising [its] standards, improving the administration of justice, and efficiently discharging one's public responsibility as an officer of the courts. 24 This Court's power to purge the legal profession of people who do not exemplify the traits of honesty, integrity, and good moral character is necessary to promote the public's faith in the legal profession. 25 Otherwise, the integrity of the judicial system is suspect since lawyers are the bridge between the lay and the courts. 'He [or she] is the first one, either as a government lawyer or as a private practitioner, to sit in judgment on every case, and whether the court will be called upon to act depends upon his [or her] decision.'" 26

Atty. Pendatun violated the

"Before lawyers are admitted to the bar, they must first solemnly swear to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. 27 This oath, to which all lawyers subscribe in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. 28 This duty is expressed in general terms in the CPR, thus:"

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

It is codified further in the following rule of the CPR:

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he [or she] mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. 29

In addition, Sec. 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that it is the duty of an attorney, among others, "to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him [or her], such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law[.]"

Here, We uphold the IBP's findings that Atty. Pendatun deliberately lied in the pre-trial brief of his brother and client Sabdullah. His defense that allegations on a pleading are just allegations as confided by a client deserves scant consideration. First, it bears stressing that he served as Sabdullah's counsel both in the administrative and civil cases. Consequently, he cannot feign ignorance as to the status of the administrative case. 30Second, as counsel, his responsibility is governed by Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (the prevailing Rules at the time the pleadings were filed), which reads: 31

Sec. 3. Signature and address. — x x x.

The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him [or her] that he [or she] has read the pleading; that to the best of his [or her] knowledge. information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. 32 (Emphasis omitted)

xxx xxx xxx

Notably, the magnitude of the signature of counsel on each and every pleading filed before the court, as well as the consequences of the failure to abide by this rule, has even been amplified in the amendments introduced to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 19-10-20-SC effective May 1, 2020. 33 (Emphasis in the original.)

The amended provision reads:

Sec. 3. Signature and address. — (a) Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must be signed by the party or counsel representing him or her.

(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;

(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the basis of evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this rule has been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation, including attorney's fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client.

Indeed, these provisions signify the duty of lawyers to conduct due diligence before signing their pleadings. Atty. Pendatun should be reminded that as counsel, he should not just have accepted his client's allegations hook, line, and sinker. "[A]s an officer of the court, [the lawyer's] high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at a correct conclusion. Courts meanwhile are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them." 34

Atty. Pendatun did not violate the

According to Arthuro, the filing of a civil case against him in a venue far from his residence constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Such argument is misplaced. A plain reading of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice shows that the act referred to by Arthuro is not one of its prohibited acts. Moreover, Sec. 2 of the same Rule provides that:

Sec. 2. Purposes. — These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the following purposes:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Corollarily, it can be deduced that the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice specifically govern the conduct of lawyers who are duly commissioned as notaries public. Here, records show that it was not Atty. Pendatun who notarized the subject Complaint. 35

For these reasons, We find that Atty. Pendatun did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. However, aside from his violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR, and Sec. 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, We also find that he violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.03 of the CPR.

The use of offensive language in a

Rule 11.03 of the CPR mandates that "[a] lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts."

"On many occasions, the Court has reminded the members of the Bar to abstain from any offensive personality and to refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language[,] even in his [or her] pleadings, must be dignified." 36

Undoubtedly, Atty. Pendatun's act of calling Arthuro "arrogant" and "ignorant" of procedural rules in his Comment 37 constitutes a violation of Rule 11.03 of the CPR. Admittedly, "[t]hough a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum." 38

The unjustified refusal to obey the

In an October 17, 2012 Order, 39 the IBP stated that Atty. Pendatun, despite due notice, failed to explain his absence during a previously scheduled mandatory conference on August 29, 2012. Further, records show that he did not submit a position paper despite an order to do so.

"In this regard, it should be emphasized that as a member of the IBP, respondent is duty-bound to comply with all the IBP's lawful directives in deference to its authority over him. 40 Verily, his failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities 41 for which he must be disciplined accordingly." 42

The Court had previously pronounced that "[t]he appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts." 43 Here, We find that the suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years, as recommended by the IBP's Board of Governors, is proper against Atty. Pendatun. Moreover, in Jacolbia v. Atty. Panganiban, 44 We imposed a fine in the amount of PHP15,000.00 for a lawyer's unjustified failure to comply with the IBP's lawful directives. Consequently, We find that a similar sanction is also proper in this case.

WHEREFORE, for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Canon 11, and Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Pendatun C. Abubacar is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two years effective immediately upon receipt of this Resolution. In addition, he is ORDERED to pay a FINE in the amount of PHP15,000.00 for his unjustified failure to comply with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' lawful directives. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Pendatun C. Abubacar 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.

Copies of this Resolution shall be furnished to: (1) the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Pendatun C. Abubacar's personal record as an attorney; (2) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and (3) the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all Philippine courts.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

2.Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

xxx xxx xxx

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him [or her], such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law[.]

3. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. Approved: July 6, 2004.

4. Rollo, p. 2.

5. Id. at 12.

6. Id. at 29-34. Docketed as Civil Case No. 2123-06.

7. Id. at 2.

8. Id. at 45.

9. Id. at 8-10.

10. Id. at 8.

11. Id. at 11.

12. Id. at 12.

13. Id. at 4.

14. Id. at 1-7.

15. Id. at 4.

16. Id. at 6.

17. Id. at 40-42.

18. Id. at 40-41.

19. Id. at 41-42.

20. Id., unpaginated. Signed by Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda.

21. Id., unpaginated.

22. Id. at 89-90. Signed by Assistant National Secretary Patricia-Ann T. Prodigalidad.

23. Id. at 89.

24. Cristobal v. Atty. Cristobal, A.C. No. 12702, November 10, 2020, citing In Re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 151 Phil. 132, 134 (1973).

25. Id., citing Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 566 (2014).

26. Id., citing Agpalo (2009), Legal and Judicial Ethics, 8th ed., p. 4, further citing Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 133 2d. 325, 144 ALR 839 (1943).

27. Cheng v. Atty. Agravante, 469 Phil. 869, 874 (2004), citing the RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 3.

28. Id. at 874-875, citing Radjaie v. Alovera, 392 Phil. 1, 16 (2000), further citing In Re: Al Argosino, 336 Phil. 766, 770 (1997) and Masinsin v. Albano, 302 Phil. 669, 675 (1994).

29. Id. at 875.

30. Rollo, unpaginated.

31. See Sps. Mariano v. Atty. Abrajano, A.C. No. 12690, April 26, 2021.

32. Id.

33. Id. Citation omitted.

34. Limv. Atty. Mendoza, A.C. No. 10261, July 16, 2019, citing Apolinar-Petilo v. Atty. Maramot, 824 Phil. 811, 821 (2018).

35. Rollo, pp. 29-34.

36. Atty. Aguirre v. Atty. Reyes, A.C. No. 4355, January 8, 2020, citing Gimeno v. Atty. Zaide, 759 Phil. 10, 23-24 (2015).

37. Rollo, pp. 40-42.

38. Atty. Aguirre v. Atty. Reyes, supra, citing Noble III v. Atty. Ailes, 762 Phil. 296, 301 (2015).

39. Rollo, p. 60. Signed by Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda.

40. Jacolbia v. Atty. Panganiban, A.C. No. 12627, February 18, 2020, citing Vecino v. Ortiz, Jr., 579 Phil. 14, 16-17 (2008), which cited Toledo v. Abalos, 374 Phil. 15, 18 (1999), and Tomlin II v. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325, 332 (2006).

41. Id., citing Tomlin II v. Moya II, supra.

42. Id.

43. Turla v. Atty. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019, citing Saunders v. Atty. Pagana-Calde, 766 Phil. 341, 350 (2015).

44. Supra.