THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11936. November 28, 2018.]
ELIAS S. CIPRIANO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EMILIO P. CANSINO III, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 28, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11936 (Elias S. Cipriano, complainant, v. Atty. Emilio P. Cansino III, respondent.) — This resolves a Complaint 1 against Atty. Emilio P. Cansino III (Atty. Cansino) for allegedly acting as Sheriff in the implementation of a writ of execution in an unlawful detainer case beyond the bounds allowed by law, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his Complaint, Elias S. Cipriano (Cipriano) alleged that Atty. Cansino was the counsel for the plaintiff in Veramil Enterprises, Inc. v. Elias S. Cipriano, docketed as Civil Case No. 34434 before Branch 41, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City. 2
On April 29, 2006, a writ of execution was issued against Cipriano. 3
On October 8, 2010, the barangay captain called Cipriano, informing him that the writ would be implemented that day. Cipriano pleaded with Atty. Cansino not to proceed with its implementation and to settle the case amicably instead. 4
Nonetheless, Atty. Cansino personally conducted and directed the implementation of the writ. He ordered things to be taken out, the attachment of a registered vehicle, and all persons to get out of the premises, which he subsequently padlocked. The contents of the premises and rental deposits worth P1,200,000.00 were auctioned off for only P238,650.00. 5 TAIaHE
In support of his Complaint, Cipriano attached Supporting Affidavits of Eileen E. Arceo, his employee; Franco Christopher J. Bueno IV, his daughter's driver; Caby A. Cabacang, his sub-lessee; Jose Javier A. Limatoc, his electrician; and Anabel N. Alba, a canteen concessionaire in his business establishment. 6
They all narrated that on October 8, 2010, at around 9:00 a.m., they saw a man in a white barong, later identified as Atty. Cansino, actively implementing the writ of execution with the help of the Sheriff and the police. 7
Atty. Cansino filed his Verified Answer, 8 where he denied the truth of the allegations in the Complaint.
He asserted that he did not act as Sheriff in the implementation of the writ. The job was performed by the Sheriff in accordance with a lawful order under the Rules of Court. 9
Moreover, among the documentary evidence presented by Atty. Cansino were the Municipal Trial Court's Judgment, Writ of Execution, the Order denying Cipriano's Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, and Sheriff's Return in Civil Case No. 34434. 10
He countered that Cipriano instituted his Complaint in bad faith as a retaliation against him for the following reasons:
(a) an indirect contempt charge against him in connection with Civil Case No. 34434;
(b) the denial of his Omnibus Motion that prayed to hold in contempt the law office where Atty. Casino was an associate; and
(c) the denial of his Verified Petition to Inhibit from hearing CBD Case No. 12-3373, which is another administrative case filed by Cipriano against him. 11 cDHAES
On January 8, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of its Report and Recommendation 12 read:
The complaint, not being satisfactorily substantiated, is bereft of merit. The same must be DISMISSED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 13 (Emphasis in the original)
In its April 19, 2017 Resolution, 14 the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors denied Cipriano's Motion for Reconsideration. 15
This Court accepts the recommendations of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Complaint should be dismissed.
Atty. Cansino did not commit a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He should not be disciplined or disbarred for he did not act as Sheriff in the implementation of a writ of execution in an unlawful detainer case beyond the bounds allowed by law.
In the enforcement of the writ, the Sheriff was accompanied by respondent Atty. Cansino, police, and a barangay tanod. Complainant Cipriano does not deny that his own counsel, Atty. George P. Lucero, was present during the implementation. He should have presented his counsel to explain the events that transpired. Such failure reveals the baselessness of his allegations.
The Sheriff's Return, Notice of Levy, Third Party Claimant's Urgent Motion to Lift "Notice of Levy," Notice of Sheriff's Sale of Personal Properties, and Notice of Sheriff's Sale are given the presumption of regularity of official acts.
In disciplinary actions against lawyers, complainants must show and prove substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. They have the burden of proving through substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. 16 This Court has consistently stated that it exercises the power to disbar with great caution and only for the most imperative of reasons in clear cases of misconduct. 17 ASEcHI
Accordingly, the Complaint against Atty. Emilio P. Cansino III is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2.Id. at 1.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 1-2.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 4-9.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 17-23.
9.Id. at 19.
10.Id. at 18-19.
11.Id. at 20-21.
12.Id. at 100-103.
13.Id. at 103.
14. Id. at 118-119.
15. Id. at 104-106.
16. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, et al., (2009), 614 Phil. 520 [Per Quisumbing, Second Division].
17. Yu, et al. v. Atty. Palaña, 580 Phil. 19 (2008) [Per Curiam, En Banc].