SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11309. July 27, 2016.]
[Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4389]
CONRADO D. BOTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. REMO Y. FLORES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11309 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4389] — Conrado D. Bote v. Atty. Remo Y. Flores
In his Affidavit-Complaint, 1 dated September 30, 2014, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant Conrado D. Bote (Bote) charged respondent Atty. Remo Y. Flores (Atty. Flores) with having violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
According to Bote, sometime in March 2011, his daughter, Emma Bobias, went to the law office of Atty. Flores. She asked him to represent him before the Court of Appeals (CA) in his appeal regarding his conviction for murder by the Regional Trial Court, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat (RTC). He was not present because he was detained at the Penal Colony in Davao del Norte. Atty. Flores agreed and he was paid P80,000.00 as acceptance fee.
After the payment was made, Atty. Flores allegedly assured her that there was a big chance that the CA would reverse the decision. In March 2014, however, Bote received a resolution from the CA stating that his right to file a reply brief was deemed waived and that his appeal was dismissed.
This prompted Bote to file the present complaint alleging that Atty. Flores committed neglect of his duty because he did not file the required reply brief before the CA.
In his answer, 2 Atty. Flores admitted that he did not file a reply brief. He explained that the Appellee's Brief filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) before the CA was a mere rehash of the memorandum filed by the prosecutor before the RTC. Hence, Atty. Flores found it unnecessary to file the said reply brief.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 3 dated May 29, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor (Investigating Commissioner) found that the complaint lacked merit. He opined that Atty. Flores had the discretion to determine whether to file a reply brief and that he could not be faulted for deciding that it was unnecessary to file the same. As there was no clear preponderant evidence to sustain the charge, the investigating commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-536, 4 dated June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner because his findings and recommendation were fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws.
Hence, the case was elevated.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the investigating commissioner and recommendation of the Board.
It is well-established that for a charge to warrant a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the presumption that the lawyer is innocent of the charge prevails. 5
In this case, Bote alleged that Atty. Flores committed neglect of duty because he failed to file the reply brief before the CA.
The Court, however, finds that Atty. Flores is not guilty of neglect.
As correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Flores had the discretion whether to file a reply brief. He found it unnecessary believing that the Appellee's Brief of the OSG before the CA simply reiterated the arguments of the prosecutor in the RTC. cAaDHT
The Court is of the view that Atty. Flores was in the best position to determine whether a reply brief was warranted or was a mere superfluity. Believing in all honesty and good faith that the same was no longer needed. Atty. Flores cannot be penalized in not filing the said reply brief.
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges until the contrary is proved, and, as an officer of the court, he has performed his duty in accordance with his oath. 6 The charge of neglect against Atty. Flores must be dismissed because Bote failed to present convincing proof that he abused his discretion.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved.
The complaint against Atty. Remo Y. Flores is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
2. Id. at 17-18.
3. Id. at 53-55.
4. Id. at 51-52.
5. Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-633 (2004).
6. Atienza v. Evangelista, 170 Phil. 360 (1977).