THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10882. December 2, 2015.]
ATTY. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MANUEL T. UBARRA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2015, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10882(Atty. Arnel Paciano D. Casanova v. Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, Jr.). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letter dated July 31, 2015 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) transmitting the documents pertaining to this case; and
(2) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-569 dated September 27, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and approving with modification the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and reprimanding respondent for violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.
Complainant Atty. Arnel Paciano D. Casanova filed an action for disbarment against respondent Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, Jr. before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
After investigation, Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero submitted the following Report and Recommendation.
FACTS:
Complainant, currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA for brevity), narrates that on July 4, 2012, Respondent, then the Vice President for Litigation of Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJHDC for brevity) executed a Complaint-affidavit before Atty. Marlin T. Galvez, Director of the Public Assistance Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman in Quezon City. The said affidavit became the basis of the criminal and administrative complaints filed by Respondent on behalf of CJHDC against him and the other members of the Board of directors of the BCDA.
In the administrative complaint against Complainant, Respondent accused him of failing to promptly act on letters and requests from the public within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, in violation of Sec. 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 in relation to the provision of Rule VI, Sections 1 and 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6713. He then accused him of neglect of duty, misconduct and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties pursuant to subparagraphs (3), (4) and (8) of Section 36 (b) of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines.
In particular, Respondent made the following allegations:
(a) On 29 December 2009, he sent a letter to BCDA calling for the formation of a Joint Committee to resolve the dispute between the BCDA and CJHDC involving a property with an aggregate area of 246.99 has within the Camp John Hay Special Economic zone;
(b) That it was only after sixty (60) days or on 01 March 2010 that Respondent, for and in behalf of the BCDA, replied to the above letter; cTDaEH
(c) On 28 May 2010, Complainant sent another letter to BCDA with respect to the provisions of the Restructuring Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) particularly on the convening of a Joint Committee to resolve the pending issues.
(d) The BCDA, through Complainant and his fellow members of the Board of Directors, did nothing to act on said letter and simply ignored Respondent.
Complainant claims that Respondent's allegations are false and explained that he assumed office as President and CEO of BCDA only on April 15, 2011. The CJHDC's letter of 29 December 2009 was addressed to Mr. Aloysuis L. Santos and Gen. Narciso L. Abaya (Ret.), then Chairman and President and CEO of BCDA, respectively, and not to him. As to the letter of 01 March 2010 this he said was written and signed by his predecessor, Gen. Abaya. He added that the letter of 28 May 2010 was addressed to Gen. Abaya.
Respondent, for his part, alleged that this complaint is merely a hideous offspring in the attempt of the BCDA to wrestle control of a multi-billion project known as Camp John Hay in Baguio City from its present lessee, CJHDC. In the course of the on-going dispute, he claimed he had been reduced as collateral damage for his role as the Vice President for Litigation of CJHDC and official spokesperson of the company.
He admitted having committed an unfortunate and unintentional mistake in stating that it was only on 01 March 2010 or after sixty (60) days that Complainant had replied to his letter. He argued, however, that the same cannot be considered as deliberate commission of a falsehood sufficient to constitute gross misconduct.
He further claimed that he executed the affidavit as representative of CJHDC and that CJHDC retained the services of Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Office to advise and aid him in the preparation of said complaint-affidavit. He reasoned out that assuming an infraction has been committed, the proper party that should be made to explain it insofar as it concerns his supposed violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the counsel that aided and advised CJHDC in the preparation of the CJHDC's complaint. In reality, he said, he is a client who relied on the advice and representations of their legal counsel.
Still, he claimed that the assertion in the affidavit that the BCDA acted only after sixty days is factual as evidenced by the belated letter dated 10 March 2010 issued by the BCDA in response to the 29 December 2009 CHJC letter. Moreover, he said, even if he removes the reference to complainant found in pars. 3.10 and 3.11 and 3.34 with reference to Annex E of the complaint, all the elements necessary to charge complainant and the rest of the BCDA Board with violations of R.A. 3019, R.A. 6713 and P.D. 807 are still present. He added that complainant and the rest of the BCDA Board failed to reply to the letters dated 16 August 2011 and 20 September 2011 of CJHDC within the reglementary period and that is more than sufficient to sustain the charges against them in the CJHDC complaint. This is especially so because even before he assumed office, Complainant was already keenly familiar with the antecedent facts and events involved in the ongoing disputes between BCDA and CJHDC because prior to his appointment, he was the General Counsel of BCDA for several years until 2009. Under the concept of institutional continuity, it is incumbent upon Complainant and the present Board of the BCDA to act on pending matters left unacted upon by the past board.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is ground to hold Respondent administratively liable. cSaATC
DISCUSSION:
This complaint had stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit which Respondent, as representative of the CJHDC, had executed charging Complainant and the members of the Board of BCDA of violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 6713 & P.D. 807 before the Office of the Ombudsman, Quezon City. Complainant took offense at the allegation in the affidavit that he failed to respond to a letter that the Respondent had sent to him on 29 December 2009 and 28 May 2010 within the fifteen (15) day period as required under Sec. 5 of R.A. 6713 and Rule VI, Secs. 1 & 2 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Respondent admitted his mistake and realized quite belatedly that in 2009 the President and CEO of the BCDA was then Gen. Narciso L. Abaya (Ret.) and not the Complainant who only assumed his duties as President and CEO of the BCDA vice Gen. Abaya on April 15, 2011. He described his allegations in par. 3.9 or 3.11 or the Complaint-Affidavit as an unfortunate and unintentional mistake and hastened to explain that the proper party to explain this slip-up or oversight is the Chavez Miranda and Aseoche Law Office which aided him in drafting the same he being a client of the law firm.
To the undersigned, there exists enough evidence to contradict or negate Respondent's claim of an unintentional mistake. He executed a Verification on page 23 of the Complaint-Affidavit to the effect that he had read the affidavit, the contents of which are true and correct on his own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic documents. Lest it be forgotten, the execution of a verification is not an empty or meaningless exercise but rather it is a source of an unswerving or steadfast affirmation of the correctness and truthfulness of his statements contained in the document. Precisely, it is for this purpose of said verification that any false statements contained therein could constitute the crime of perjury or other related crimes.
It amazes the undersigned no end that Respondent, a Vice President for Litigation of the CJHDC, would have committed such a fundamental mistake when he, by his records of employment with CJHDC, was already in his current position in 2009 when Gen. Abaya was still the President and CEO of BCDA. Also, being in the litigation department, he was inarguably in a position to access any and all records pertaining to CJHDC's complaint against the Respondent and the Board of Directors of BCDA as in fact he, in his verification, had declared that he based his complaint on authentic documents made available to him. As to what documents were made available to him and he made a cautious, meticulous and watchful review of the same, for sure he would not have committed such gaffe' that the Complainant had appropriately used a foundation for this instant complaint against him.
The undersigned takes interesting note of the fact that Respondent had claimed he had been mistaken yet his conduct failed to show a genuine act of contrition. His statement that the case was a hideous offspring in the attempt of the BCDA to wrest a multibillion project from CJHDC can readily attest to this. To prove that his declaration of mistake is sanctimonious, the undersigned posits that he must have withdrawn the statement in the Complaint-Affidavit he filed before the Ombudsman in any manner that is allowed by the rules governing the practice of law before the Ombudsman so as not to unduly harm an innocent person. Or he could have admitted the mistake, as in fact he did, show remorse and ask for the leniency of the Commission. But he failed to do the same and in fact he remained defiant as shown by his allegations in his Answer to this instant complaint.
His argument that he was a client of the Chavez Miranda and Aseoche law and therefore no charges can be attributed to him is unacceptable. He is the affiant of the Complaint-Affidavit and being so, he and not his lawyers, must own up and take the blame for the false statements contained therein. In fact, he alleged that the law firm had merely aided him in the drafting of the same and that based on his personal knowledge and by the use of authentic documents made available to him, he executed the assailed affidavit.
While his act of making false statements in his sworn affidavit could lead to a mistaken conclusion of the Office of the Ombudsman against Complainant, a high government official, nevertheless, the undersigned is of the belief that the same does not constitute gross misconduct or one that is wilful of flagrant particularly because he professed mistake or oversight as heretofore discussed. However his act undoubtedly constitutes misconduct under Rule 10.01, Cannon 10 of the Code of Professional. Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath and undoubtedly it is included in the broad statutory grounds for disciplinary action against a lawyer. cHDAIS
RECOMMENDATION
Foregoing premises considered, the undersigned believes and so holds that the instant complaint is meritorious. Accordingly, he recommends that the Respondent be meted with the penalty of CENSURE.
Pasig City, June 28, 2013.
Resolution No. XXI-2014-569 RESOLVED to adopt and approve with modification, the report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, that respondent Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, Jr. be reprimanded.
Finding said Recommendation to be in accord with law, the COURT adopts the recommendation of the IBP. Accordingly, Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, Jr. is hereby REPRIMANDED. Let his case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court