Bertol v. Valencia

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10397. April 2, 2018.]

LUCITO M. BERTOL AND LEONARDO D. LIGERALDE, IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS CHAIRMAN AND INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, RESPECTIVELY, OF MANILA SEEDLING BANK FOUNDATION, INC. (MSBF), petitioners, vs. ATTY. CHRISTIAN B. VALENCIA, ATTY. FELIXBERTO F. ABAD AND ATTY. KARLO L. CALINGASAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 2, 2018which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10397 (Lucito M. Bertol and Leonardo D. Ligeralde, in their personal capacities and as Chairman and incumbent President, respectively, of Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. (MSBF) v. Atty. Christian B. Valencia, Atty. Felixberto F. Abad and Atty. Karlo L. Calingasan).

Before Us is a complaint for disbarment 1 filed by herein complainants Lucito M. Bertol (Bertol) as Chairman and Leonardo Ligeralde (Ligeralde) as President of the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. (MSBFI) against Atty. Christian B. Valencia as City Attorney of Quezon City, Attys. Felixberto F. Abad and Karlo L. Calingasan as Assistant City Attorneys of Quezon City. HTcADC

MSBFI was created pursuant to Proclamation No. 1670. It was vested with usufructuary rights for 50 years, reckoning from 1977 to 2027, over a seven-hectare parcel of land located in Quezon City. The subject property was part of the 143,996 square meters of land registered under the National Housing Authority (NHA). 2

Sometime in 2005, the City Treasurer of Quezon City issued a Statement of Deliquency regarding MSBFI's real estate taxes, representing the tax period from 1978 until the first quarter of 2005. The assessment is in the amount of P59,365,189.34.

As MSBFI failed to pay said taxes, a Final Notice of Delinquency was served, indicating that the subject property will be subjected to an auction sale, which was pushed through. 3

MSBFI then questioned the legality of the collection of the realty taxes, invoking Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1197 which expressly exempted MSBFI from payment of all taxes, in Civil Case. No. Q-05-56927 entitled "Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. v. City Treasurer Victor Endriga, Quezon City and National Housing Authority."4

For the second time, another notice of assessment, pertaining to unpaid real estate taxes from 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2011, was served upon MSBFI. Subsequently, a Notice of Sold Real Property was served upon MSBFI. 5

The foregoing incidents forced MSBFI, through its counsel, to protest the alleged unlawful action of respondents in taking over and forcibly usurping MSBFI's premises.

A petition for prohibition, docketed as Special Civil Action No. Q-12-71638, was filed by Bertol as Chairman of MSBFI. 6

Respondents filed their Answer, which asserted, among others, that the applicable redemption period had lapsed; and as such, the Quezon City Government has vested right of ownership over the same.

Based on the abovementioned allegations of respondents, Bertol and Ligeralde filed this instant complaint. They alleged that respondents made deliberate assertions of falsehood in the Answer as they claim that the Quezon City Government is the owner of the subject property. 7 CAIHTE

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued a Report and Recommendation which dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The IBP-CBD found that respondents acted in good faith as they defended the interest of the Quezon City Government from the allegations raised by MSBFI, thus:

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint filed against ATTY. CHRISTIAN F. VALENCIA, ATTY. FELIXBERTO F. ABAD AND ATTY. KARLO L. CALINGASAN is DISMISSED for lack of merit:

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 8

The IBP-Board of Governors adopted the findings of the IBP-CBD, to wit:

"RESOLUTION NO. XXII-2016-212et al. vs.et al.

RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of facts and recommendation of DISMISSAL by the Investigating Commissioner due to lack of evidence to prove the allegations in the complaint."9

We dismiss the complaint.

In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed to practice law. 10

Said proceedings are sui generis — neither purely civil nor purely criminal. They do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers. 11 Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. 12 In the recent case of Reyes v. Nieva, 13 this Court had the occasion to clarify that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence.

We are in accord with the findings of the IBP-CBD, as adopted by the IBP-Board of Governors, that respondents did not violate Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

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 an artifice. aScITE

As the IBP-CBD observed, respondents merely defended the interest of its client, the Quezon City Government in asserting the alleged false statements in the Answer. The allegations in the Answer simply averred the claim that Quezon City Government is the owner of the subject property according to the Local Government Code. In doing so, the respondents, in the defense of its client, merely raised an issue which essentially seeks the ruling of the trial court. The allegations merely shield the Quezon City Government from the claims of MSBFI.

WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. The instant disbarment complaint against Atty. Christian B. Valencia, Atty. Felixberto F. Abad and Atty. Karlo L. Calingasan is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-24.

2.Id. at 2-3.

3.Id. at 3.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 5.

6.Id. at 8.

7.Id. at 9.

8.Id. at 355.

9.Id. at 346-347.

10.Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407 (2013).

11.Gonzales v. Atty. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 471, 482 (2006).

12.Concepcion v. Atty. Fandino, Jr., 389 Phil. 474, 481 (2000).

13. 802 SCRA 196 (2016).