SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11942. September 16, 2020.]
REYNALDO N. DALIDA, WILFREDO DALIDA, AND HERMINIA D. POLO, complainants,vs. ATTY. GAUDIOSO C. DE LUNAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 September 2020which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11942 (Reynaldo N. Dalida, Wilfredo Dalida, and Herminia D. Polo, v. Atty. Gaudioso C. De Lunas). — The Court resolves to adopt the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The Court has consistently upheld the legal presumption that an attorney is innocent of charges against him until the contrary is proved; and as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 1 Thus, in disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proof to establish the case against the respondent lawyer. 2
The Court finds that Reynaldo N. Dalida, Wilfredo Dalida, and Herminia D. Polo (complainants) have failed to discharge this burden.
Complainants charge Atty. Gaudioso C. De Lunas (respondent) with violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 17, Canon 18, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 3
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 state that:
Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Complainants basically claim that respondent defrauded Spouses Pedro Dalida and Luciana Dalida (Spouses Dalida) into selling the 2,753-square meter portion of their property to Spouses Juan De Lunas and Crisanta De Lunas (Spouses De Lunas). However, complainants failed to substantiate their allegation. As established in the proceedings below: Spouses Dalida sold to Spouses De Lunas the 2,753-square meter property as evidenced by the Deed of Sale 4 executed on September 29, 1994; nothing in the Deed of Sale shows that respondent notarized it, or acted as a witness to its execution, or that there was undue influence, intimidation, deceit, or fraud committed against Spouses Dalida; and, further, there was no showing that the consideration of P150,000.00 was grossly inadequate.
Canon 17, Canon 18, and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 respectively state as follows:
CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
RULE 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
The Court does not find that respondent violated the foregoing provisions. As found by the IBP:
[T]he evidence showed that through the legal representation of the Respondent, the latter was able to secure a favorable decision in favor of the Complainants and their mother, Luciana Dalida. x x x In fact, the testimony of Complainant's mother, Luciana Dalida[,] in her testimony in Civil Case No. 3014 x x x, was stated on page 10, Decision dated 20 December 2006 x x x, to wit:
"At present she owns and possesses 600 sq. [m]. of the property, while the portion consisting of 2,753 [sq. m.] was already sold to the De Lunas family and which the latter occupies. The De Lunas family built a house on the lot and their lot is separated from the witness' lot by a concrete fence."
It is therefore very clear that Complainants' mother herself, Luciana Dalida has categorically testified that the portion of 2,753 [sq. m.] has already been sold to the De Lunas family and it is inconceivable for the Complainants to accuse herein Respondent for defrauding Complainants' parents into selling the said property to the De Lunas family. Obviously, as between [the] testimony of Complainants' mother that the [portion of] 2,753 [sq. m.] has already been sold to the De Lunas family and the bare allegations of herein Complainants that Respondent has defrauded Complainants' parents, an allegation contrary to the testimony of Complainants' mother, Luciana Dalida[,] is at the very least baseless, if not totally unbelievable. Complainants could have testified as an adverse witness if they truly believed that the testimony of their mother in Court was false. x x x Complainants' inaction and silence speaks a thousand words, of their acquiescence to the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. x x x 5
As aforesaid, complainants have the burden of proving their allegations by substantial evidence. Since they failed to do so, this results in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner in his Report and Recommendation dated August 24, 2015 which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Notice of Resolution dated January 21, 2016 in CBD Case No. 13-3921. Accordingly, the disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Gaudioso C. De Lunas is hereby DISMISSED and considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Ordoña-Ponce v. Ponce, A.C. No. 10395, October 17, 2018.
2.Id.
3.Rollo, p. 309.
4.Id. at 79-80.
5.Id. at 311-312.