THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9726. March 16, 2016.]
EJAMES DM. CORONEL, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIA ESTELA FELIPA M. ACERON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 16, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9726 (Ejames DM. Coronel v. Atty. Maria Estela Felipa M. Aceron). — The Court NOTES the letter dated January 11, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines transmitting the documents pertaining to this case.
For resolution is a Complaint dated January 22, 2013 filed by Ejames DM. Coronel charging respondent Atty. Maria Estela Felipa M. Aceron with violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1 (1.01, 1.02, 1.03), Canon 3 (3.01) and, Canon 10 (10.1 and 10.3) before the Supreme Court. After respondent's Comment, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation in the Court's Resolution dated July 29, 2013.
Pertinent portions of the Report and Recommendation dated June 10, 2014 of Investigating Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera, IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, follow:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
xxx xxx xxx
The circumstance from which the allegation was anchored was relevant to the Estafa case earlier filed by Standard Charter Bank ("SCB" for brevity) against Januar M. Coronel, the brother of herein complainant. The complaint for Estafa was filed by complainant SCB before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati on June 22, 2000. As contained in the affidavit of the herein complainant, it was specifically mentioned that the complaint [lodged] against Januar M. Coronel was dismissed on November 9, 2002.
Standard Charter Bank, availed remedy through Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied on March 7, 2001 by the prosecutor assigned to the case. Seeking refuge through Petition for Review, the remedy was readily availed by complainant bank. Thus, the petition was filed before the Department of Justice on April 10, 2001. On the said petition, Manuel Baviera (Baviera for brevity) signed the verification and certification of the petition in behalf of the complaining bank.
xxx xxx xxx
Finally, in a Resolution issued by the DOJ dated December 15, 2003, the earlier resolution rendered by the prosecutor at the Makati Prosecutor's Office was reversed by and subsequently ordered the filing of an Information against respondent [Januar] M. Coronel. 1
xxx xxx xxx
Issue
Whether or not the allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient enough to declare Atty. Maria Estela Felipa M. Aceron, guilty of violating the Canons of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1 (1.01, 1.02, 1.03), Canon 3 (3.01) and Canon 10 (10.1 and 10.3)?
Commissioner's Findings
"A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for gross misconduct or for transgressions defined by the rules as grounds to strip a lawyer of professional license. Considering, however, the serious consequences of either penalty, the Court will exercise its power to disbar or suspend only upon a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of misconduct that seriously affects the standing of a lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of the bar." (Fernandez v. De Ramos-Villalon, A.C. No. 7084, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 310, 319; citing Concepcion v. Fandiño, Jr., A.C. No. 3677, June 21, 2000, 334 SCRA 137).
xxx xxx xxx
The salient provisions in connection with the allegations hurled to Atty. Aceron are hereunder reproduced: CAIHTE
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND ELEGAL PROCEDURES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
xxx xxx xxx
Canon 3 — A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 — A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualification or legal services.
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 misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, it appears that the charge of complainant against respondent is hinged on [the] Manifestation submitted before the Department of Justice. All the foregoing allegations revolved around the said document.
On the first issue regarding the falsification of Manuel Baviera's signature as appearing on the said Manifestation, it would be easily [noticed] that indeed there really exist a pinch of variation as to the stroke of the handwritings appearing therein. It is a basic knowledge that as a rule the handwriting of each individual may not be similarly written considering the varied condition of the human palm at a varied given time.
In the instant case, it was clearly established that the [respondent's] signature was wanting of any ounce of proof to elucidate any amount of irregularity that can be connected to it. In the execution of documents such as the Manifestation, the crucial point is the [presence] of a collatilla which provides the sheer admission of the affiant (Baviera) that the signature affixed were indeed his own penmanship. The phrase in the form of attestation which read "is my signature" was scribbled on the portion adjacent therein which is provided to declare that for all intent and purpose which may surround the execution of the said document.
There is nothing on the face of the manifestation to arouse any suspicion of insertion or forgery. At any rate, the signature was admitted by the affiant Baviera. Except for the bare allegations of complainant, no other evidence was presented to show that the signatures appearing on the Manifestation are forgeries.
As to the issue of false notarization, complainant merely supplies words of argumentations which in depth was wanting in legal basis to support its validity to establish that indeed the circumstances relevant to the allegation of false notarization is in conformity with the veracity of the said document as it appear. The document still embraced its presumption of regularity as it was not clearly overcome by the mere phrases of reasoning absent but any legal bases [advanced] by the complainant to support its conclusion. Besides, any irregularity in the notarization or even the lack of notarization does not affect the validity of the document. Absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.
xxx xxx xxx
On the issue as to the falsity of the Community Tax Certificate seems to be no more of a major argument to reckon with. The fact that the name of Manuel Baviera appeared on the said cedula provides a clear ownership as to who owns the cedula practically divested the herein complainant of contesting its genuiness and due execution. In our normal life, the proof of ownership could be readily inferred by the scribbled name appearing thereat unless proven on the contrary. The said cedula time and again serves as a source of identity and provides immediate reference. At this juncture, the undersigned deemed the issue as already been moot due to the ruling made on the preceding issues.
Finally, the authority of Annemarie Dublin, who certified the Manifestation, is clearly outside the personal knowledge of the herein complainant. Such allegation is akin to a fishing-expedition. At the onset, no matter how long the arguments submitted but obviously no amount of clear evidences can be gathered and presented is an exercise of futility. Complainant is echoing the silent voices which have nothing to prove as apparently anchored in this line of reasoning. DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned humbly believes after a thorough consultation with jurisprudence, the respondent is found innocent of the charges. . . . .
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-865, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case against Atty. Maria Estela Felipa M. Aceron.
Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Maria Estela Felipa M. Aceron and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. NOTE: Januar M. Coronel (Coronel) was convicted of estafa by the RTC of Makati, Branch 149. Said conviction was affirmed by the CA. The Court, in a Resolution dated September 8, 2008, denied Coronel's petition for review on Certiorari on the ground that the CA committed no reversible error. An Entry of Judgment was made on March 3, 2009.