FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7950. March 13, 2019.]
ELIZABETH CATOLOS, petitioner, vs.ATTY. TERESITA CAPACILLO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7950 (Elizabeth Catolos v. Atty. Teresita Capacillo). — We resolve this administrative case 1 filed by Elizabeth Catolos (petitioner) before this Court assailing the dismissal of her complaint against Atty. Teresita Capacillo (respondent) by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors.
Petitioner was the lessee of Spouses George and Marilyn Lim (Spouses Lim). Their lease contract covered a property where petitioner's restaurant was located. However, six months after the lease contract was executed, Spouses Lim refused to accept petitioner's tender of payment of rent. This prompted petitioner to file a civil case for enforcement or rescission of the contract before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Respondent and her father, Atty. Alfonso Capacillo, allegedly acted as counsels for Spouses Lim. 2
On June 3, 2007, petitioner claimed that respondent, accompanied by two policemen, forcibly ejected her employees from the leased premises despite the absence of a valid court order. Additionally, petitioner alleges that respondent, on June 6, 2007, led a team of men in removing the signage of her restaurant, again without any court order. 3
These two incidents prompted petitioner to seek the disbarment of respondent before the IBP. 4
In his report and recommendation 5 dated January 18, 2008, Investigating Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag (Investigating Commissioner Hababag) recommended that the complaint be dismissed. According to Investigating Commissioner Hababag, the lease contract has been validly terminated by Spouses Lim and petitioner was not able to show how respondent was involved in drafting or enforcing the lease contract. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently adopted and approved Investigating Commissioner Hababag's report and recommendation. 6
Petitioner then filed this petition before this Court to assail the IBP's dismissal of her disbarment complaint. Petitioner argues that in dismissing the case, the IBP Board of Governors gravely abused its discretion by anchoring its Decision on the merits of the separate civil case instead of the propriety of the acts of respondent. 7
After receiving respondent's comment on the petition, We resolved to refer the case back to the IBP for another investigation, report, and recommendation. 8
After reinvestigation, Investigating Commissioner Manuel T. Chan (Investigating Commissioner Chan) found that respondent acted as counsel for the spouses and recommended that respondent be held administratively liable for the two incidents in June 2007. Investigating Commissioner Chan made the following findings: CAIHTE
(1) Respondent's actuations in going out of her way to help the Spouses Lim was contrary to her claim that she is not the legal counsel of the Spouses Lim;
(2) Respondent proffered conflicting claims as to the reason she was present when petitioner's employees were evicted from the leased premises; and
(3) Respondent failed to discuss or specifically deny the June 6, 2007 incident in her answer to the original complaint. It was only three years later in her position paper that she denied the incident without offering any explanation for such delay.
Investigating Commissioner Chan also considered the affidavits submitted by the store manager and the assistant store manager of Chowking, Cubao Branch, which were executed only a few days after both incidents. According to Investigating Commissioner Chan, there was no reason why petitioner and her employees would fabricate charges against respondent when they barely had any interaction with the latter. 9
Investigating Commissioner Chan then recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. 10 On June 5, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors approved and affirmed the recommendation. 11
We concur with the findings of the IBP except as to the imposable penalty.
There is substantial evidence to show that, indeed, respondent acted as counsel for Spouses Lim. Respondent has consistently denied being the legal counsel for Spouses Lim, and has gone so far as to state that she "did not and do not participate in the affairs of the Capacillo Law Office," the firm representing Spouses Lim which is owned and managed by respondent's father. 12 Records disclose, however, that all the pleadings submitted by respondent in this case were prepared by the Capacillo Law Office. Respondent also had access to all documents, including pleadings and letters, prepared or filed by the Capacillo Law Office on behalf of Spouses Lim. 13 In addition, the excerpts 14 issued by the Kamuning Police Station PS-10 in relation to the June 3, 2007 incident show that respondent appeared before the said police station as legal counsel for George Lim. Respondent's acts during the June 3, 2007 incident, as narrated in the affidavits 15 of the store manager and the assistant store manager of Chowking, Cubao Branch, belie the claim that she is not the legal counsel for Spouses Lim. Her account of the June 3, 2007 incident in her position paper contradicts her account of the same incident in her answer to the original disbarment complaint. In her answer, 16 she explained that she was "[passing] along the vicinity" on her way to a meeting, "where she observed a commotion," hence, her presence was a mere "coincidence" and that she had no knowledge of who owned the Chowking branch which was already padlocked. On the other hand, in her position paper, she gave the following reason:
On the night of 03 June 2007, while Respondent was on her way to an important meeting, Respondent received a call from Mr. Noel Tagle. Respondent personally knows Mr. Tagle as a Building Administrator of Spouses Lim, but which exact property or building, Respondent had no idea until this whole incident. x x x
When Mr. Tagle called up, he asked Respondent for assistance as Respondent is the only lawyer he personally knows of. x x x [S]he proceeded to go to the place x x x in Cubao, Quezon City, near Chowking, considering that she would passed thereby anyway on her way to a meeting. x x x 17
Her contradictory statements deserve no merit in contrast to the statements made by the store manager and the assistant store manager who had no reason to fabricate charges against her. There is no indication at all that they were motivated by revenge arising from past dealings, personal or business, with respondents. 18 All the circumstances show that respondent was acting in representation of Spouses Lim. DETACa
Respondent is enjoined to represent her clients with zeal but only within the bounds of the law. 19 In particular, every lawyer is required to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. 20 This, respondent failed to heed. By forcibly ejecting petitioner's employees and removing the signage of petitioner's business, respondent took the law into her own hands.
In Areola v. Mendoza, 21 this Court reminded that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means not honorable, fair and honest, which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. 22
As regards the penalty, the IBP Board of Governors recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. We find the recommended penalty excessive. In the case of Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RCBI) Bohol v. Florido, 23 We suspended Atty. Florido for one year for leading his clients to forcibly take over the premises and management of RCBI Bohol without a valid court order. Thus, and considering the similar circumstances of this case, We deem that the penalty of a suspension from the practice of law for one year is proper and commensurate.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Teresita Capacillo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective upon the finality of this Resolution, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is also DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of her receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine the effectivity of her suspension.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent's personal record with the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts of the land.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-18.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 2-4.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id. at 32-39.
6.Id. at 31.
7.Id. at 8-10.
8.Id. at 174.
9.Id. at 241-250.
10.Id. at 250.
11.Id. at 239-240.
12.Id. at 192.
13.Id. at 247. See also id. at 94-131, 140-141, 156-160, 161-164, 227-228.
14. Id. at 68.
15. Id. at 60-63.
16. Id. at 134.
17. Id. at 203-204.
18. Id. at 249.
19. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 19.
20. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 19.01.
21. A.C No. 10135, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 173.
22. Id. at 181-182.
23. A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 182.