SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12949. September 13, 2021.]
FERDINAND BELTRAN, complainant, vs.ATTY. MARIA RHONA S. VERGARA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12949 (Ferdinand Beltran v. Atty. Maria Rhona S. Vergara). — This is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment filed by Ferdinand Beltran (Beltran) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Maria Rhona S. Vergara (Atty. Vergara) for alleged commission of criminal acts in furtherance of client's cause. Beltran claimed that Atty. Vergara violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Antecedents:
Beltran alleged that on June 9, 2015, Atty. Vergara assisted her clients in forcibly opening the vault at King's Royal Hotel and taking possession of 42 checks and cash amounting to P3,587,855.56 and P68,000.00, respectively. This happened notwithstanding the ongoing dispute between Beltran and Atty. Vergara's clients. He contended that the acts of Atty. Vergara and her clients amounted to robbery since they did not have the authority to take the checks and cash. Beltran likewise claimed that Atty. Vergara threatened to file criminal cases against the hotel's staff who refused to cooperate with her and also prevented the police from entering the premises when they responded to a report that a criminal activity was happening at the hotel. 2
Atty. Vergara denied the accusations against her. She asserted that her clients were the sitting members of the Board of Directors of King's Royal Hotel and Leisure Corporation. She maintained that one of her clients who is a Board member and treasurer, has the right to have custody over the corporate funds to pay off the debts of the company. Yet, her client failed to secure possession of the checks and cash since these were turned over to Beltran's lawyer instead. She averred that contrary to Beltran's claim, she merely asked a few of the hotel's staff to voluntarily sign a piece of paper stating that they refused to surrender the checks and cash upon Beltran's orders. Since the hotel staff opted not to sign, she did not pursue the matter anymore. Moreover, Atty. Vergara averred that she politely asked the police about the purpose for their visit but they could not provide an answer. She insisted that she did not prevent the police from entering the premises. 3
Report and Recommendation of the
In a Report and Recommendation 4 dated November 30, 2017, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the complaint. He found Atty. Vergara's actuations valid and in line with the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. Moreover, Beltran's allegations were hearsay since he was not present when the incident occurred. Beltran failed to prove his accusations with clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. On the other hand, Atty. Vergara presented evidence to show that she acted with propriety. Furthermore, both parties confirmed that although Atty. Vergara asked the hotel's staff to sign a sheet of paper, she did not insist when they refused. Thus, Beltran's claim that Atty. Vergara intimidated them does not hold water. 5
Relevantly, the Investigating Commissioner also noted that Beltran's lawyer took possession of the checks and cash, and that Beltran never mentioned this fact in any of his pleadings. This bolstered Atty. Vergara's assertion that this disbarment suit was only filed to harass her. Respondent lawyer should also be presumed innocent of the charges, and that as an officer of the court, she performed her duties pursuant to her oath. 6
In a Resolution 7 dated September 7, 2019, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. TIADCc
Our Ruling
The Court dismisses the disbarment complaint against Atty. Vergara.
Records disclose that Beltran did not identify in his complaint the specific provisions of the Lawyer's Oath or the CPR which Atty. Vergara supposedly violated. Regardless, in his Position Paper, Beltran enumerated the following: a) violations of Canons 1 (Rules 1.01 and 1.02), 8 10 (Rule 10.01), 12 (Rules 12.04 and 12.06), and 19 9 of the CPR; 10 b) gross ignorance of the law; 11 and, c) violation of the Lawyer's Oath ("not to delay any man for money or malice"). 12 However, after evaluation of the evidence presented, the Court finds that Atty. Vergara did not violate the Lawyer's Oath or the CPR.
We agree with the observation of the IBP that Beltran's assertions were hearsay. 13 He was not present during the incident at the hotel but narrated the details as if he were. Without sufficient proof, Beltran's allegations cannot be considered as facts.
Indisputably, Atty. Vergara is the counsel of the spouses Melchor and Vilma Caluag (Spouses Caluag), with whom Beltran (along with his wife and son), has an ongoing dispute involving a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) wherein the Beltrans purchased additional shares of stock (of the Hotel) from the spouses Caluag. Due to issues related to delays, insufficient payments, and dwindling profits of the Hotel, the relationship between the Beltrans and Caluags soured. Eventually, the opposing parties sent numerous demand letters to each other. 14 After failing to reach an amicable settlement, the spouses Caluag sent Notices of Termination with Declarations of Default to the Beltrans pursuant to the MOA. In addition, the parties filed several complaints against each other before the trial courts. 15
There is, thus, reason to believe that the filing of this administrative case against Atty. Vergara is intimately tied to the dispute between the Caluags and the Beltrans. It is possible that Beltran resented Atty. Vergara for rendering legal advice to the Caluag couple concerning the management of the Hotel, which is adverse to his interest. However, Beltran's animosity or frustration with the spouses Caluag should not result in Atty. Vergara's disbarment absent substantial proof, as she was merely acting as the counsel of the Caluags.
Indeed, the following questions hound Atty. Vergara's actions: (1) Did Atty. Vergara have basis in declaring that since the checks, including the vault, were corporate property, the Board had sole discretion over its administration? 16 (2) Did Vilma Caluag, as treasurer, have the right to possess and administer the Hotel's funds? (3) Did the lack of an injunctive order 17 (on the cases before the trial courts) not prevent Vilma Caluag from performing her functions as the supposed manager and treasurer of the Hotel? (4) Did the Board's ratification of the forcible opening of the vault 18 affect the rights of the parties?
These inquiries, nonetheless, are directly connected to the conflict between the Caluags and the Beltrans and would be better threshed out in the proceedings before the trial courts. The instant administrative case is not the proper venue for the resolution of these queries, more so when there was no evidence that Atty. Vergara has already been found civilly or criminally liable in connection with her actions.
In any case, Beltran did not submit evidence that Atty. Vergara exercised her duties as counsel of the Caluags outside the ethical bounds of her profession. It was not shown that she unduly threatened the hotel staff or the authorities. Beltran did not also show proof that Atty. Vergara advised her clients to perform unlawful acts.
In other words, Beltran did not prove with substantial evidence 19 that Atty. Vergara acted contrary to law and her oath which would warrant disciplinary action against her. Moreover, counsel did not commit any of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 20 of the Rules of Court. Rather, she acted in accordance with Canons 17, 18, and 19 of the CPR, as follows:
CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
CANON 19 — A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
As retained counsel of the Caluags, respondent lawyer is legally bound to assist them in protecting and exercising their rights and obligations as members of the Board of the Hotel and as parties to the MOA (with the Beltrans). It is not prudent to immediately penalize Atty. Vergara simply because she rendered legal opinions to her clients, even if in Beltran's view, these were erroneous or against his or his family's benefit.
To stress, "[e]very person has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Considering the gravity of the consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a lawyer, the Court has consistently ruled that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his/her complaint through substantial evidence." 21 Unfortunately, complainant Beltran failed in this regard.
All the same, Atty. Vergara "must be reminded that as a lawyer, [she] 'is duty-bound to serve [her] client with competence, and to attend to [her] client's cause with diligence, care and devotion. This is because a lawyer owes fidelity to [their] client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on [them].'" 22 Members of the Bar, including Atty. Vergara, should bear in mind that in championing the interests of their clients, the law, as well as the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR, should not be compromised. Lawyers should impart legal advice within the bounds of law and propriety. They should shun the skewed belief that their client's interests are superior to that of others or that it should take precedence over existing laws and jurisprudence.
To reiterate, absent sufficient evidence, the complaint against Atty. Vergara should be dismissed as she only performed her duties as counsel for her clients. As a lawyer, she is expected to provide advice to her clients based on legal grounds. In any case, her interpretation of matters, although possibly contentious, should not immediately be considered as unlawful or improper without substantial basis.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint against Atty. Maria Rhona S. Vergara is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Letter dated October 8, 2020 of Randall C. Tabayoyong, Director for Bar Discipline, is NOTED. AIDSTE
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 624.
3.Id. at 53-65, 624-625.
4.Id. at 623-626; penned by Commissioner Jose Aguila Grapilon.
5.Id. at 625.
6.Id. at 626.
7.Id. at 621-622.
8.Id. at 606.
9.Id. at 610.
10.Id. at 598.
11.Id. at 612.
12.Id. at 613.
13.Id. at 571-572; see: Sarmiento v. Dizon, G.R. No. 235424, February 3, 2021 which states: "[j]urisprudence defines hearsay evidence as 'evidence not of what the witness knows himself [or herself] but of what he [or she] has heard from others.' As a general rule, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence for it has no probative value."
14.Rollo, pp. 555-560.
15.Id. at 563.
16.Id. at 572-574.
17.Id. at 579-580.
18.Id. at 570.
19. 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, § 6: "That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." SeeTan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020.
20. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
21.Lim v. Mandagan, A.C. No. 11962 (Notice), December 2, 2020 citing Spouses Nocuenca v. Atty. Bensi, A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020.
22.Portuguese, Jr. v. Centro, A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021 citing Bondoc v. Licudine, A.C. No. 12768, June 23, 2020.