THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11068. April 6, 2016.]
ROCELO P. BUCAD AND ROBERTO T. REYES, complainants, vs. ATTY. ROMMEL A. FRIAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 6, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11068 (Rocelo P. Bucad and Roberto T. Reyes v. Atty. Rommel A. Frias). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-892 dated December 13, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the instant case; and
(2) the letter dated January 11, 2016 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case.
For resolution is the Complaint 1 dated July 15, 2013 filed by Rocelo P. Bucad and Roberto T. Reyes (complainants) charging respondent Atty. Rommel A. Frias (Atty. Frias) for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The complainants alleged that Atty. Frias, as president of the United BF Homeowners Association, Inc. (UBFHAI), violated the CPR and Lawyer's Oath when he approved and spearheaded the construction of the annex of the UBFHAI clubhouse without any locational clearance and building permit, which is required under Section 301 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP). 3
On July 19, 2013, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued an Order 4 directing Atty. Frias to submit his Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof.
In his Answer, 5 Atty. Frias averred that the roof repairs in the UBFHAI clubhouse was made in good faith and to prevent potential injury considering that it posed a threat to the employees and homeowners of the subdivision. According to him, it was carried out on the assumption that it was exempt from the requirement of a building permit under 2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the NBCP. Also, Atty. Frias claimed that since a previous development permit had already been issued for the BF Homes project, no locational clearance is required. 6
Moreover, Atty. Frias contended that the repair works where approved and adopted by the board of directors of the UBFHAI, which manages the general affairs and conduct the business of the association pursuant to its Amended By-Laws. 7
On September 6, 2013, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference 8 wherein it required both parties to appear before it for a mandatory conference.
Upon the conclusion of the conference, the IBP-CBD issued an Order 9 dated January 16, 2014, declaring the mandatory conference closed and terminated. The order likewise directed both parties to submit their position papers within a period of 10 days from receipt thereof.
On February 25, 2014, Commissioner Antonio Ray A. Ortiguera (Commissioner Ortiguera) issued his Report and Recommendation 10 wherein he recommended the dismissal of the Complaint against Atty. Frias for lack of evidence.
In a Notice of Resolution 11 dated December 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Ortiguera.
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds that the dismissal of the Complaint against Atty. Frias is proper under the circumstances.
As correctly observed by the IBP-CBD, the complainants failed to prove that Atty. Frias committed acts of giving counsel or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system as prohibited under Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Report and Recommendation states in part:
While Complainants point to a UBFHAI newsletter article stating that Atty. Frias approved and spearheaded the construction, nowhere does it say that Atty. Frias specifically ordered that no building permit or locational clearance should be obtained. AIDSTE
xxx xxx xxx
The fact that Atty. Frias ordered the construction to proceed based on the assumption that no building permit and locational clearance is required, appears to be an act of interpreting the law rather than an act of defiance of the law. This is no different from when a lawyer renders a legal opinion to a client, which, without further evidence of misconduct or negligence, will not be sanctioned. In fact, the CPR expects no less that a lawyer protect the interests of his client since a "client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense." 12
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge. 13 Moreover, an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof. 14 In the present case, complainants failed to attribute clear and preponderant proof to show that Atty. Frias willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in contravention of the standards of honesty as provided for by the CPR which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against him.
The lapses of Atty. Frias were apparently without malice and devoid of any desire to cause harm. At most, these are innocuous blunders which do not reach the level of professional incompetence. 15
WHEREFORE, finding the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Rommel A. Frias and considers the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2. Sec. 301. Building Permits. — No person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building is located or the building work is to be done.
3. Rollo, pp. 151-152.
4. Id. at 15.
5. Id. at 20-24.
6. Id. at 22.
7. Id. at 21-22.
8. Id. at 25.
9. Id. at 77.
10. Id. at 150-156.
11. Id. at 149.
12. Id. at 154-155.
13. Atty. Asa v. Atty. Castillo, 532 Phil. 9, 21 (2006).
14. Manubay v. Garcia, 386 Phil. 440, 444 (2000).
15. De Zuzuarregui, Jr. v. Atty. Soguilon, 589 Phil. 64, 71 (2008).