SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12992. November 15, 2021.]
CRISTOBAL BASCO, ALFREDO ALLA, AND TIRSO DE LARA, complainants, vs.ATTY. JOSEPH RYAN C. APASAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 12992 (Cristobal Basco, Alfredo Alla, and Tirso De Lara v. Atty. Joseph Ryan C. Apasan). — This administrative complaint stemmed from a Joint Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by complainants Cristobal Basco, Alfredo Alla, and Tirso De Lara (complainants) against respondent Atty. Joseph Ryan C. Apasan (Atty. Apasan) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Complainants are the respondents in an ejectment suit before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) filed by the Heirs of Montellano Martinez (heirs of Martinez). The heirs of Martinez sought physical possession of the subject property located in Sapul, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0406-072-05. Atty. Ireneo Apasan (Atty. Ireneo), father of herein respondent Atty. Apasan, was the counsel of the heirs of Martinez in the said case. When Atty. Ireneo died, Atty. Apasan became their new counsel and attended the hearing on the execution of the decision of the ejectment case.
Pending the resolution of the case, complainants claimed that the subject property had been transferred entirely or substantially in the name/s of Atty. Ireneo, his wife and/or his relatives. Norma Martinez, by virtue of a special power of attorney executed by the heirs, sold a portion of the subject property to Atty. Irineo and Angelina Apasan, "their heirs, successors and assigns" 2 by virtue of a Deed of Partial Sale executed on June 30, 2006. 3 The other portions of the subject property were then sold to Eric Apasan and Maria Christia Apasan on September 3, 2010. 4 As a result, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 064-2012005314 5 and 064-2012005315 6 were issued in favor of Spouses Eric and Maria Christia Apasan on October 12, 2012. On the other hand, TCT No. 064-2013002718 was issued on June 26, 2013 in the name of several owners, all surnamed Apasan, including respondent lawyer in this case. 7
Complainants averred that Atty. Apasan knew about the transfer of the title of the subject property in his father's and/or family's name while the ejectment case was still pending and that the same was illegal. He was even informed during the hearing of the ejectment suit that the transfer was unlawful and an unethical practice of law. However, Atty. Apasan insisted on the execution of the decision and the subsequent writ to protect his exclusive claim and interest in the subject property. He was even present during the enforcement of the writ of execution and was seen giving instructions to the sheriff therein. 8
This prompted complainants to file the instant administrative complainant charging Atty. Apasan with violation of the CPR.
On the other hand, Atty. Apasan, averred that the heirs of Martinez availed of his father's legal service since 2002 in the filing of a case for recovery of possession of the subject property, to secure the titling of the same, and to perform all acts relative thereto. As such, contrary to complainants' allegation, the sale of the portion of the subject property in 2006 was pursuant to Atty. Ireneo and the heirs' agreement that the former would receive one hectare of the subject property as compensation for the successful titling of the land as stated in the contract of service. 9
Since the heirs of Martinez were financially incapable to pay the legal services of Atty. Ireneo, Atty. Apasan averred that the heirs of Martinez agreed to pay Atty. Ireneo a portion of the subject property which is permissible under Canon 13 of the CPR, on the basis of the successful prosecution of the ejectment case and the titling of the land.
Atty. Apasan also contended that the subject property was transferred to his parents only in 2012 as shown in the certificates of titles, 10 or three years after the ejectment case attained finality. 11 Lastly, Atty. Apasan claimed that the complainants only filed the instant complaint against him to collaterally attack the validity of the certificates of titles over the subject property.
Report and Recommendation of
In the Report and Recommendation 12 dated June 22, 2018, the Investigating Commissioner recommended to dismiss the administrative complaint against Atty. Apasan. The Investigation Commissioner opined that complainants failed to duly prove that Atty. Apasan participated in the transfer of ownership of the subject property in his parents' and/or family's names. Assuming that the transaction was illegal, complainants should have filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Irineo, not on the respondent lawyer, being the counsel who entered into the purported transaction as payment for his contingent fee.
The Investigating Commissioner likewise found that the instant complaint is nothing but a collateral attack on the validity of the transfer of the certificates of titles which is not within the jurisdiction of the IBP and disallowed under the rules.
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board), in its December 14, 2019 Resolution, 13 approved and adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, to wit:
RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 14
Our Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
We stress that Our power to discipline lawyers will only be exercised if the complainant has sufficiently proved that respondent lawyer has indeed violated his/her Lawyer' s Oath and the CPR. 15 The burden of proof lies upon the complainant who must show the alleged violation of the erring lawyer by substantial, clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary power and to warrant the imposition of administrative sanction. 16
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found Atty. Apasan not guilty of committing any conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.
There is dearth of evidence indicating that Atty. Apasan had participation in the transfer of the subject property. Indeed, the heirs of Martinez sold a portion of the subject property to Atty. Irineo and Angelina Apasan, "their heirs, successors and assigns" 17 in 2006. However, Atty. Apasan was not even a signatory thereto. This simply shows that he has no participation in the sale transaction. Neither was he involved in the sale of the subject property to Eric Apasan and Maria Christia Apasan on September 3, 2010, 18 after the ejectment suit had become final and executory in 2009. It was only in 2012 and 2013, or three to four years after the finality of the case that the certificates of title were issued in the name of the Apasans.
Assuming arguendo that a portion of the subject property was indeed sold to Atty. Ireneo and his wife in 2006 and that it was unlawful and unethical, the Court agrees with the IBP that complainants should have filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ireneo, who was a party thereto, and not against Atty. Apasan, who only represented the heirs of Martinez in the ejectment case after the demise of his father, Atty. Ireneo.
Moreover, a reading of the minutes of proceeding 19 held on August 10, 2015 also belied complainants' contention that Atty. Apasan was apprised of the alleged unlawful and unethical transaction. The minutes only showed that the heirs of Martinez and complainants failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, that complainants were informed of their option to file a motion for inhibition of the PARAD officer, and for the heirs of Martinez to file a comment on the motion of one of the respondents in the ejectment suit.
In fine, complainants' accusations are nothing but bare allegations absent clear and convincing evidence that Atty. Apasan committed unethical conduct in the practice of law. We agree with the observation of the IBP that the administrative complaint is merely a pretext for assailing the regularity of the transfer of ownership of the subject property to the Apasans, which is not within the ambit of our power to discipline lawyers. 20 In Gemina v. Atty. Madamba, the Court stressed that "the IBP cannot inquire into whether the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the land. It is not within its authority to determine whether the complainant has a legal right to the properties involved in the transactions and to require her to submit proof to that effect. Its function is limited to disciplining lawyers, and it cannot determine issues of law and facts regarding the parties' legal rights to a dispute." 21
All told, the complaint should be dismissed. Atty. Apasan is presumed innocent absent any proof that he committed any conduct that would render him unfit to practice law. 22
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Atty. Joseph Ryan C. Apasan is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 67.
3.Id. at 67-70.
4.Id. at 63-66.
5.Id. at 18-20.
6.Id. at 12-14.
7.Id. at 15-17.
8.Id. at 3-4.
9.Id. at 106-107.
10.Id. at 30; Notably, however, TCT Nos. 064-2012005314 and 064-2012005315 were issued on October 12, 2012 in the names of Spouses Eric C. Apasan and Maria Christia N. Apasan while TCT No. 064-2013002718 was issued on June 26, 2013 in the name of several owners, all surnamed Apasan, including respondent lawyer in this case.
11.Id. 46.
12. Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
13. Notice of Resolution, unpaginated.
14.Id.
15.Lim v. Perocho, A.C. No. 11066, April 6, 2016.
16.Spouses Dumdum v. Algarra, A.C. No. 12943 (Notice), September 13, 2021, citing Suplico v. Lokin, Jr., A.C. No. 9152, July 1, 2020.
17.Rollo, p. 67.
18.Id. at 63-66.
19.Id. at 21.
20.Gemina v. Atty. Madamba, 671 Phil. 541, 574 (2011).
21.Id.
22.Vantage Equities, Inc. v. Bocar, A.C. No. 12742 (Notice), September 3, 2020, citing Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 572 (2014), citing Rodica v. Lazaro, 693 Phil. 174, 182 (2012).