FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5961. February 13, 2019.]
ATTY. REGULO B. COLOMA, complainant, vs.ATTY. BENEDICTO B. ULEP, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 5961 (ATTY. REGULO B. COLOMA, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENEDICTO B. ULEP, Respondent.) — We resolve the disbarment case 1 filed by Atty. Regulo B. Coloma against Atty. Benedicto B. Ulep for violation of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing grave coercion, gross misconduct in office and willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court. Similarly, the Court will decide on the Countercharge 2 for disbarment filed by Atty. Ulep against Atty. Coloma for Perjury or giving false testimony under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code and for knowingly and willfully causing the double titling of lands as the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.
The Antecedents
The positions of the parties were summarized in the Report 3 prepared by Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) as follows:
Complainant accuses Respondent of violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing Grave Coercion, Gross Misconduct in Office, and Willful Disobedience of Lawful Order of a Superior Court. Complainant alleges that:
1. He is the duly appointed Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, Metro Manila, having been appointed to the said position by then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada on 28 December 1999.
2. Respondent, as LRA Administrator, issued Administrative Order No. 2002-97 ("A.O. No. 2002-97") directing Complainant's transfer to the LRA Central Office "without any job description and without any definite term whatsoever. Hence, the same is tantamount to removal from office." CAIHTE
3. Respondent has neither the power nor the authority to transfer Complainant since this power belongs exclusively to the President of the Philippines. Only the President can exercise direct disciplinary authority over his appointees.
4. Given this evident illegality of the aforementioned AO No. 2002-97, complainant filed a Special Civil Action for Injunction to enjoin Respondent and all other persons acting on his behalf to cease and desist from implementing the said AO. The Special Civil Action was filed with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") Caloocan City and raffled to Branch 121 thereof and docketed as Special Civil Action No. C-721.
5. Branch 121 of RTC Caloocan granted Complainant's prayer for injunction and ordered respondents therein, including Atty. Ulep, to cease and desist from implementing A.O. No. 2002-97 (the "Court Order").
6. Respondent received a copy of the Court Order on 23 January 2003. On said date, Respondent issued a Memorandum to the Records Officer of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, Josefino N. Lustre, directing said Officer to: a) collate and secure all titles and documents pertaining to real estate transactions affecting the Maysilo Estate for the year 2002; and b) maintain and keep the said titles and documents in his possession and not to deliver the same to anyone unless otherwise directed or instructed by the Respondent or Atty. Ronald A. Ortile ("Atty. Ortile"), Director for Legal Affairs Department and Chairman of the Audit Team created pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2003-2 dated 15 January 2003 ("AO 2003-2").
7. On 24 January 2003, Respondent, through Atty. Ortile, "forcibly pulled-out thirteen (13) titles from the vault of the Register of Deeds Caloocan City supposedly for turnover to, and safekeeping in, the LRA Central Office." This is a clear usurpation of an official function lodged with the Register of Deeds. Under Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 ("P.D. No. 1529"), otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, "the Office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository or records of instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated." Hence, Complainant filed a criminal case against the Respondent for usurpation of official functions with the Ombudsman.
8. For issuing the Memorandum dated 23 January 2003 despite knowledge of the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the RTC Caloocan, Complainant filed with the RTC Caloocan a Motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt (the "Motion") for his improper and illegal act on 27 January 2003.
9. Despite the Court Order and pending Motion, Respondent continued with his intentional display of defiance to a lawful ruling by issuing another Order dated 10 January 2003, which suspended Complainant from his office for three (3) months. Said Order was purportedly issued on 10 January 2003, yet it was only sent out eighteen (18) days later or on 28 January 2003, one (1) day after Respondent received a copy of the Motion.
10. With respect to the countercharge of disbarment, Respondent alleges that Complainant should be disbarred for: a) issuing TCTs which resulted at double titling; and b) committing perjury and false testimony on the witness stand on 6 January 2003. On the first ground, Complainant claims that he cannot be disbarred because his actions of issuing the various TCTs never violated the stand of the LRA. Respondent's letter dated 3 April 2002 contains the qualification "unless the Supreme Court will come up with a definite appropriate ruling on OCT No. 994." Complainant issued the TCTs on the bases of several Supreme Court rulings upholding OCT No. 994 issued on 19 April 1917. Hence, Complainant claims he cannot be disbarred because he merely acted in conformity with the Supreme Court rulings. With respect to the second ground, he cannot be held guilty of committing the crime of perjury without any determination of probable cause to hold him guilty of such crime, much less was there any trial where Complainant was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of perjury.
Atty. Ulep's Defenses and Countercharge
In his defense, Respondent alleges the following: DETACa
1. On 3 October 1997, then LRA Administrator Reynaldo Y. Maulit issued LRA Circular No. 97-11. Said LRA Circular provides that in case a court order would direct the issuance of a certificate of title but that the same would result in double titling or overlapping or the issuance would be highly irregular, the concerned Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds is directed to inform the court concerned by way of a written manifestation stating the reason/s for the non-implementation of the court order. If the court concerned should still insist on the implementation of its order, the Register of Deeds is required to immediately elevate the matter en consulta to the LRA in accordance with Section 117 of PD No. 1529, which shall then be referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (the "OSG") for the filing of the appropriate judicial action.
2. Then Registrar of Deeds, Atty. Yolanda Alfonso ("Atty. Alfonso"), was charged with and found guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty in relation to her alleged part in land titling irregularities affecting properties located within the Maysilo Estate. Atty. Alfonso was meted the penalty of dismissal from service by the LRA, Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Office of the President.
3. On 28 December 1999, Complainant was appointed Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City.
4. A certain Atty. K.V. Faylona ("Atty. Faylona") wrote a letter to then LRA Administrator Alfredo R. Enriquez ("Atty. Enriquez") requesting the latter to direct the Registers of Deeds of Caloocan City and Quezon City to comply with the Order dated 8 January 1998 of Branch 120 of RTC Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-424. Said Order directed the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title ("TCTs") involving the Maysilo Estate emanating from Original Certificate of Title ("OCT") No. 994 which allegedly was "registered on 19 April 1917 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City," in favor of the plaintiffs therein.
5. Atty. Enriquez wrote a letter-reply to Atty. Faylona dated 27 March 2000 wherein Atty. Enriquez denied Atty. Faylona's request of directing the pertinent Registers of Deeds to comply with the Order dated 8 January 1998 of RTC Branch 120 of Caloocan City. Complainant was furnished a copy said letter-reply.
6. Complainant's awareness of the stand of LRA on the Order dated 8 January 1998 and of LRA Circular No. 97-11 were evident in the letter dated 22 October 2001 he wrote to then LRA Administrator Senecio O. Ortile ("Atty. Ortile"). In response to Complainant's letter, a letter-reply dated 3 April 2002 from Respondent (who was then the LRA Administrator already) was received by Complainant.
7. Despite Complainant's knowledge of Atty. Enriquez's letter-reply to Atty. Faylona, wherein the Order dated 8 January 1998 was not implemented by the LRA and was thereafter referred to the OSG, which then filed a motion for reconsideration of said Order, and his own letter dated 21 October 2001 which was confirmed in Respondent's letter-reply dated 3 April 2002 to Complainant, Atty. Coloma, in complete disregard of existing issuances of the LRA and in defiance of the valid and legal directives of his superiors, issued TCT No. C-361618 on 28 October 2002 and, more or less, twelve (12) other TCTs on different dates.
8. When Respondent learned of the irregular and anomalous issuances of TCTs committed by Complainant, he issued the aforementioned A.O. No. 2002-97 which directed Complainant to report for Duty at the LRA Central Office immediately and designated Atty. Joven A. Alegre ("Atty. Alegre") as Acting Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City. The issuance of the said A.O. No. 2002-97 falls within the power and function of the LRA Administrator. Section 6 of P.D. No. 1529 allows the LRA Administrator to "exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other personnel of the Commission."
9. A certain Genciana Ramos, who was then detailed to the Office of the Complainant, Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, received the original copy of the aforementioned A.O. No. 2002-97 intended for Complainant, as shown by her signature affixed on the receiving copy dated 11 December 2002.
10. Further, on 12 December 2002, Atty. Alegre personally gave a copy of A.O. No. 2002-97 to Complainant.
11. On 13 December 2002, Complainant went to the Office of the Register of Deeds and wrote the letter antedated to 12 December 2002 addressed to Respondent asking for reconsideration and recall of A.O. No. 2002-97. On 3 January 2003, Teresita Castillo of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City received Respondent's letter-reply to Complainant's letter for reconsideration. aDSIHc
12. On 23 December 2002, Complainant filed the "Urgent Petition Ex-Abundanti Cautelam" of even date for "Prohibition with Damages and Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction." Significantly, Complainant deliberately excluded the attachment of his letter dated 22 October 2001.
13. Respondent's issuance of the Memorandum dated 23 January 2003 to Records Officer Josefino N. Lustre and the subsequent removal from the vault of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City of the aforementioned thirteen (13) TCTs involving the Maysilo Estate for turnover to and safekeeping in the LRA Central Office was done in utmost good faith and was not in contravention of the Order dated 16 January 2003 of Branch 121 of RTC Caloocan. As mentioned, the LRA Administrator has supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other personnel, which includes Records Officer Josefino Lustre. Hence, Respondent is vested with the power and authority to direct the Records Officer to collate and secure the aforementioned TCTs, and likewise order the removal of the same from the vault of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.
14. The Respondent's issuance of the Order dated 10 January 2003 was in connection to Administrative Case No. 02-06, entitled, "Don Enciso Benitez vs. Atty. Regulo B. Coloma" and has no relation to A.O. No. 2002-97, which is the subject matter of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by Branch 121 of RTC Caloocan. Said Order is not a retaliatory act against Complainant, nor is it a sign of disrespect to the courts. Said Order was the result of Respondent's lawful performance of his duty to resolve pending administrative matters brought before the LRA, which includes said Administrative Case No. 02-06 filed by a private complainant against Atty. Coloma. Furthermore, the claim that said Order was antedated is absolutely false. The same was prepared on 10 January 2003 before it reached Respondent who then approved and signed the same. Moreover, this issue has been resolved by the Civil Service Commission ("CSC") in its Resolution dated 27 April 2004, where Complainant elevated said LRA Order on appeal. The CSC dismissed said appeal filed by Complainant.
15. On 24 March 2003, Respondent and Atty. Alegre, now being represented by the OSG, filed a petition for certiorariad cautelam with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order ("TRO") and/or writ of preliminary injunction ("Writ of P.I.") with the Supreme Court, entitled, "Benedicto B. Ulep, et al. vs. Hon. Adoracion G. Angeles, et al." In said petition, LRA sought for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of P.I. to stop Branch 121 of RTC Caloocan from implementing the assailed Order dated 16 January 2003, and the corresponding Writ of P.I. dated 21 January 2003. In a Resolution dated 8 April 2003, the Supreme Court resolved to issue a TRO "enjoining respondents from enforcing the Order dated 16 January 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121 Caloocan City, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated 21 January 2003." In effect, the TRO issued by the Supreme Court maintains, during the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari filed by Atty. Ulep, A.O. No. 2002-97 dated 9 December 2002.
16. Respondent claims that Atty. Coloma should be disbarred for committing perjury or false testimony under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code. During cross-examination on 6 January 2003, Complainant professed ignorance of the letter dated 27 March 2000 from then LRA Administrator Enriquez to Atty. Faylona, and that he is not aware of and has not read or received a copy of the said letter. This was proven to be lies by virtue of Complainant's own letter dated 22 October 2001 recognizing the official stand of the LRA on the Maysilo Estate. Complainant must also be disbarred for knowingly and willfully causing the double titling of lands involving the Maysilo Estate. 4
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
On August 15, 2005, Commissioner Villadolid submitted his report recommending the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Ulep. Commissioner Villadolid had observed that Atty. Ulep, in his capacity as LRA Administrator, acted within his power to control and supervise all Register of Deeds, including the complainant Atty. Coloma. Further, Atty. Ulep's order to collate and remove titles related to the Maysilo Estate from the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City did not amount to willful disobedience to a court order but rather an exercise of his power of control and supervision. 5 ETHIDa
On the other hand, Commissioner Villadolid found Atty. Coloma liable for committing perjury while on the witness stand; that during cross-examination, Atty. Coloma had disavowed any knowledge regarding the official stand of the LRA on the Maysilo Estate and claimed that he was unable to read the March 27, 2000 letter to Atty. Faylona; that such statement directly contradicted his letter dated October 22, 2001 containing the LRA's stand on the Maysilo Estate; that Atty. Coloma would not have attached a copy of the March 27, 2000 letter as supporting evidence to his letter had he not read and known of the contents of said letter. 6 Accordingly, Commissioner Villadolid recommended as follows:
In view of the foregoing, this Commissioner respectfully recommends that the complaint against Atty. Benedicto B. Ulep be dismissed for lack of merit. With respect to the countercharge against Atty. Regulo B. Coloma, this Commissioner respectfully recommends that Atty. Coloma be imposed a penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension of three (3) months at the discretion of the board with a warning that repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty. 7
On November 12, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors promulgated Resolution No. XVII-2005-133 8 which reads:
RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2005-133
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that the complaint against Atty. Benedicto B. Ulep lacks merit the same is hereby DISMISSED, with regards to the countercharge, Atty. Regulo B. Coloma is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months for his actuations are not truthful with a Warning that a repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.
Issue
Is there sufficient evidence to hold Atty. Benedicto B. Ulep and Atty. Regulo B. Coloma administratively liable for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Our Ruling
The Court ADOPTS the recommendations of the IBP.
A case involving the suspension or disbarment of a member of the bar is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case; it is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. 9 As such, the complainant has the burden of proving with substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. 10
An examination of the records herein revealed that Atty. Coloma failed to support his allegations against Atty. Ulep with substantial evidence. Atty. Coloma had failed to show that his act of reassigning him was illegal or made in bad faith. In ordering herein complainant's reassignment, Atty. Ulep, as LRA Commissioner, had validly discharged his power of supervision under the Revised Administrative Code over all Registers of Deed. In the absence of allegations of improper motives for the transfer and illegal dismissal, Atty. Ulep cannot be held administratively liable.
We also agree with the findings of Commissioner Villadolid regarding the order issued by Atty. Ulep in collating and withholding titles involved in the Maysilo controversy, that such was done within his powers as LRA Commissioner. In view of the disputes involving the Maysilo Estate, such order can be said to be the most prudent act that Atty. Ulep could have done as the LRA Commissioner. cSEDTC
As regards the countercharge, We find Atty. Coloma administratively liable.
Canon 6 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that the Code extends to government lawyers including complainant herein Atty. Coloma as Register of Deeds. As such, the canons require him to:
Canon 1 — A Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxx xxx xxx
Canon 10 — A Lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A Lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.
We find herein that Atty. Coloma had transgressed Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 when he falsely testified in court on January 6, 2009. As an officer of the court, Atty. Coloma is expected to be truthful with his testimony and to avoid committing any form of falsehood.
As regards the penalty, the Court in Molina v. Magat, 12 imposed a penalty of six (6) months suspension on the lawyer for making untruthful statements as to the existence of a similar case designed to mislead the court into dismissing the case due to double jeopardy. Similarly in Samonte v. Abellana, 13 the Court also imposed on Atty. Abellana the penalty of suspension for six (6) months for inexcusably changing the date of filing of the complaint from June 10, 1998 to June 14, 1998 thereby misleading both her client and the court. The Court held therein that Atty. Abellana had committed plain and simple falsification.
As Atty. Coloma had been untruthful and dishonest while testifying in open court, the Court finds as proper to impose upon him the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the complaint against ATTY. BENEDICTO B. ULEP for lack of merit and considers the same as CLOSEDandTERMINATED; FINDS ATTY. REGULO B. COLOMA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath; IMPOSES upon Atty. Regulo B. Coloma the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS; and ISSUES a STERN WARNING upon Atty. Coloma that a repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.
Let a copy of this resolution be entered in the personal records of Atty. Regulo B. Coloma as a member of the Philippine Bar, and copies furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts in the country. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-20.
2.Id. at 122-169.
3.Id. at 555-573.
4.Id. at 557-566.
5.Id. at 567-569.
6.Id. at 571.
7.Id. at 573.
8.Id. at 554.
9.Arsenio v. Tabuzo, A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017, 824 SCRA 45, 49.
10.Cruz-Villanueva v. Rivera, A.C. No. 7123, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 248, 253.
11. Canon 6: These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their task.
12. A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1, 6.
13. A.C. No. 3452, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRA 80.