THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9661. February 28, 2018.]
HERNANDO G. CASTRO, complainant,vs. ATTY. ROSALIA A. BAUTISTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 28, 2018, which reads as follows: cHDAIS
"A.C. No. 9661 (Hernando G. Castro v. Atty. Rosalia A. Bautista) — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated November 9, 2017 of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano, Director for Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, transmitting to this Court the documents pertaining to this case; and
(2) the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-767 dated January 27, 2017 of the IBP Board of Governors adopting the finding of fact and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the complaint.
This is a Complaint 1 for suspension and/or disbarment filed by Hernando G. Castro (complainant), before the Court against Atty. Rosalia A. Bautista (respondent), for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer's Oath.
The Complaint
Complainant alleged that in 2006, Maura A. Bautista (Maura), together with her sister, respondent herein, approached him and applied for a loan in the amount of Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00). To convince him to grant the loan, respondent presented two (2) real properties located in Bulacan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-145988 2 and TCT No. T-54681 3 and registered under the name of Maura. Allegedly, respondent told complainant that TCT No. T-54681 was a 500-square meter lot with a 4-storey building, designated as MAB Building, erected therein and showed him the property.
On September 20, 2006, complainant granted the loan and, as security thereof, Maura executed a Real Estate Mortgage 4 over the two properties and signed a Promissory Note 5 promising to pay the loan with interest at 1.5% per month on September 20, 2007. Maura issued a postdated check 6 in the amount of Seventeen Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P17,700,000.00).
On February 5, 2007, Maura requested and was granted by complainant an additional loan in the amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00). She then signed another Promissory Note 7 and issued a postdated check amounting to Three Million Three Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Pesos (P3,342,000.00).
When Maura failed to pay the loans and the checks were dishonored, complainant foreclosed the properties. At the public auction, complainant was declared the highest bidder and a certificate of sale was issued in his favor.
During the one (1) year redemption period, Maura and respondent met with complainant and requested for an extension to redeem the property. Despite the extension granted, Maura failed to redeem the properties. Consequently, complainant executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and registered the properties in his name. TCT No. T-145988 and TCT No. T-54681 were then cancelled and TCT No. T-287797 8 and T-287796, 9 respectively, were issued in favor of complainant. Thereafter, complainant demanded Maura to vacate the MAB building but the latter refused to do so, hence, a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed.
Complainant averred that during the execution of the writ of possession, he was shocked and surprised when respondent arrived and interfered with the execution claiming that the MAB building was not owned entirely by Maura as it was erected beyond the property and encroached on the lot owned by respondent.
Complainant subsequently filed a petition for indirect contempt against Maura for her refusal to comply with the writ of possession. During the hearing of the petition, he was, again, shocked when respondent, acting as counsel for Maura, submitted a relocation plan dividing the MAB building into two (2) and presented a separate tax declaration. Complainant contended that he was not able to gainfully occupy or even rent out the MAB building because of respondent and Maura's act.
Complainant asserted that he was not aware that respondent had a claim on the portion of the MAB building because neither Maura nor respondent mentioned it to him. He claimed that respondent maliciously and fraudulently convinced him to grant Maura's loans by representing to him that the properties and all the improvements thereon were owned by Maura without any reservations whatsoever, and that respondent used all her knowledge in law to wrestle against him on the possession of the MAB building. Worse, respondent was maliciously attempting to register a portion of the said building despite knowledge that Maura had no more rights to the said property. ISHCcT
The Comment
In her Comment, 10 respondent denied the allegations and countered that she was not aware that her sister obtained a loan from complainant using the two parcels of land as a security thereof because it was kept from her so as not to distract her as she was then taking the bar examinations. She only learned about the loan transactions when complainant foreclosed the properties and her sister asked her legal opinion on the matter. She countered that it was only in 2009 when she first met complainant when she accompanied her sister to ask for an extension to redeem the property, and the second time was in Quezon City on the same year, when she informed complainant that there was an ongoing negotiation between Maura and the Northrail Corporation for possible acquisition of the MAB building. The negotiation was, however, vacated.
Respondent further alleged that the relocation-verification plan she submitted before the court could not possibly have surprised complainant as this was a product of the survey conducted by the geodetic engineer hired by complainant and Maura. She added that the submission of the said plan and the tax declaration to the court as exhibits were legal and regular because these documents were proof of Maura's ownership of the lot where the MAB building was located.
In a Resolution 11 dated June 16, 2014, the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Recommendation of the IBP
In its Report and Recommendation 12 dated February 15, 2016, the IBP-Commission on Integrity and Bar Discipline (Commission) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. It opined that complainant failed to prove that respondent knew of the transactions entered into by Maura and complainant, and the issue of whether the MAB building was erected outside the property owned by Maura and occupied the portion of the lot owned by respondent was a factual issue beyond the authority of the IBP.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2017-767 13 dated January 27, 2017, the IBP-Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Commission, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. 14
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Commission.
The evidence submitted by complainant vis-a-vis the explanation presented by respondent is not sufficient to hold the latter administratively liable. The Court agrees with the Commission that complainant failed to prove his allegations that respondent had knowledge or participated in the loan transactions of Maura and that respondent's purported misrepresentation that the MAB building was wholly owned by Maura impelled him to grant the loan. Moreover, complainant failed to substantiate his claim that respondent used her legal knowledge to prevent him from taking possession of the said building for respondent is simply helping her sister sister in her legal battle and employing available remedies to protect her rights.
In administrative proceedings, the well-settled rule is that the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant and in order for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by substantial evidence. 15
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Rosalia A. Bautista is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-9.
2.Id. at 11-13.
3.Id. at 14-16.
4.Id. at 17-19.
5.Id. at 20.
6.Id. at 21.
7.Id. at 22.
8.Id. at 28-29.
9.Id. at 24-25.
10.Id. at 46-56.
11.Id. at 265.
12.Id. at 271-280.
13.Id. at 269-270.
14.Id.
15.Noriega v. Sison, 210 Phil. 236 (1983).