THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9630. June 5, 2017.]
EJAMES M. CORONEL, complainant,vs. ATTY. PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 5, 2017, which reads as follows: ISHCcT
"A.C. No. 9630 (Ejames M. Coronel v. Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun). — A complaint 1 was filed before us by Ejames M. Coronel (complainant) against Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun (respondent) for his alleged violation of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Investigating Commissioner Roland B. Beltran, acting on the complaint, submitted the following Report and Recommendation: 2
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. The Case —
On August 17, 2012, complainant Ejames M. Coronel filed before the Supreme Court the instant case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun for violation of the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On December 7, 2012, respondent Atty. Fortun filed his Comment; on December 20, 2012, complainant Coronel filed his Reply; and on January 17, 2013, respondent Atty. Fortun filed his Rejoinder.
Thereafter, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
II. Facts —
As borne from the records, the following are the facts of the case.
On April 21, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149, rendered judgment in the case of "People of the Philippines versus Januar M. Coronel[,"] Criminal Case No. 04-228, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of estafa against Standard Chartered Bank.
Januar M. Coronel is the brother of Ejames, the complainant in this case.
Januar was represented by Atty. Joselito R. Enriquez during trial before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149.
On appeal, Januar was represented by the Law Firm of Fortun Narvasa & Salazar, with Atty. Dickson B. Berberabe and Atty. Leah R. Vistro signing the Appellant's Brief dated November 18, 2005 (Annex "1").
On February 22, 2008, a decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR No. 29416, affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149.
In the meantime, Atty. Dickson B. Berberabe already resigned from the Law Firm of Fortun Narvasa & Salazar. The case was then handled by Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun.
Respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun representing Januar filed the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 183825, entitled "Januar M. Coronel versus People of the Philippines" (Annex "2"). The petition was signed by respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and Atty. Geraldine S. Meneses.
On September []8, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the Petition of Januar: (1) "for failure to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction[;"] and (2) "that the verification of the petition is insufficient as it was based on petitioner's personal knowledge and information and on authentic records in violation of Section 4, Rule 7 as amended by Administrative Matter No. 00-2-10-SC [En Banc Resolution effective [May 1,] 2000] (Annex "7").
Earlier on, sometime in July 2008, Ejames and his father Arsenio T. Coronel Jr., discovered alleged falsified public document issued by the Standard Chartered Bank which refers to a Verified Manifestation under the signature of Manuel V. Baviera (Annex "A") informing the Department of Justice that he is the authorized representative of the bank to file the Petition for Review before the DOJ. Ejames claims that the signature of Manuel V. Baviera is falsified or forged as shown from the sample signatures of Mr. Baviera. The discovery of alleged falsified document was brought to the attention of respondent Atty. Fortun in the last week of July 2008 during their meeting at respondent's [l]aw [f]irm. Ejames said that they did not receive any advice from Atty. Fortun as to what to do with the falsification[] (see pars. 13 and 17, Affidavit-Complaint for Disbarment dated August 10, 2012). CAacTH
The complainant Ejames Coronel filed the disbarment complaint accusing the respondent Atty. Fortun of (1) not acting on [the] evidence showing commission of a criminal offense by a person; and [intentional] impairment of the verification of a petition filed with the Supreme Court that caused the denial of the Petition.
Hence, this repo[r]t and recommendation.
III. The [I]ssues —
Whether or not respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun violated the provisions of the Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath?
IV. Report and Recommendation —
The complaint is without merit.
Understandably, the complainant Ejames Coronel, a layman, uninitiated on the intricacies of the rules of evidence, easily jumped into conclusion that the signature of Manuel V. Baviera is a forgery. It is not uncommon that a person can have more than one style of signatures, the purpose of which is evidential.
The alleged discovery of falsified document is not conclusive but a mere conclusion on the part of Ejames. The rules on evidence require[] testimonies of handwriting experts to ascertain the genuineness and authenticity of a writing and signature. Expert testimonies normally comes from the National Bureau of Investigation and the Crime Laboratory of the Philippine National Police.
Certainly, we are guided by certain rules and not without reason. This is intended for an orderly [and] sound administration of justice. Anybody can claim falsification or forgery, but proving the same is another thing. Especially in this case, where Manuel V. Baviera did not come forward to disown his signature in the verified manifestation (Annex "A").
The investigating commission[er] likewise notes the comment of respondent Atty. Fortun that newly discovered evidence cannot be the subject of the Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
It may be added that findings of facts of the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are given great weight and respect by the Supreme Court. "In the case at bench, the issues raised by the petitioners are essentially factual matters, the determination of which are (sic) best left to the courts below. Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence on the record.["] (Xentrex Motors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 258, 262 [1998].)[]
Thus, the resolution denying the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 183825, among others, "for failure to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction." The Supreme Court is in agreement with the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. (Martin vs. Felix Jr., 163 SCRA 111, 130 [1988])
Further, the act complained of must be proven by clear and preponderant evidence, the corrupt character of the act done must be clearly demonstrated. This is so because the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the charge against the lawyer must be established by convincing proof (Go vs. Candoy, A.C. No. 736, [October] 23, 1967, 21 SCRA 439; Toquib vs. Tomol, Jr., A.C. No. 554, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 156; [I]n re[:] Atty. Felizardo M. de Guzman, A.C. No. 838, [January] 21[,] 1974, 55 SCRA 139).
The law and jurisprudence extend on respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties as an attorney, that is, "he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed [his] duties in accordance with his oath." (In Re: De Guzman, 154 Phil. 127 [1974]; De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 [1939]; In Re: Tiongko, 43 Phil. 191 [1922]; Acosta v. Serrano[,] 166 Phil. 257 [1977].) IAETDc
It has been said that the profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It is a lifetime profession. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney may be able to amass considerable means to support himself and his family, besides the honor and prestige that accompany his office and profession. To deprive him of such honored station in life which would result in irreparable injury must require proof of the highest degree, which [I] find nowhere here. While courts will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties [,] they will, on the other hand, protect them from the unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants. The success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored. Private persons, and particularly disgruntled opponents, may not, therefore, be permitted to use the courts as vehicles through which to vent their rancor on members of the Bar. (Santos vs. Dichoso, Adm. Case No. 1825[,] 84 SCRA 622)
In any event, respondent's reputation as one of the leading legal luminaries, his known standing in the legal community, would have reflection on the prestige of the legal profession. The prestige of the legal profession can well be maintained when lapses and inadvertence are avoided in the preparation of the pleadings. The respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun should endeavor to review, and review thoroughly, pleadings prepared by his associates, including verification and certification, to ensure that it is sufficient inform and substance thereby clients will have no reason complaining dissatisf[action] with the legal services that has been provided.
Respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun must humble himself and admit the fact that the verification in the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 183825, which he signed along with Atty. Geraldine S. Meneses, "is insufficient as it was based on petitioner's personal knowledge and information and on authentic records in violation of Section 4, Rule 7 as amended by Administrative Matter No. 00-2-10-SC [En Banc Resolution effective [May 1,] 2000] (Annex "7").
WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun, be dismissed for lack of merit.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
In Resolution No. XXII-2016-262, 3 dated April 29, 2016, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors resolved to adopt the foregoing Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case against respondent.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The complainant failed to prove, by substantial evidence, that respondent committed a misconduct warranting the imposition of a disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 164-168.
3.Id. at 162-163.