SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12671. November 24, 2021.]
GEMMA S. DUMAGAN, complainant,vs. ATTY. RENE S. GRAPILON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 24, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12671 (Gemma S. Dumagan v. Atty. Rene S. Grapilon). — The Court resolves to:
(1) NOTE and GRANT respondent's Manifestation with Motion for Leave of Court to File a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 12, 2020 (Anchored on a Violation of the Right to Due Process) dated January 26, 2021, stating that on January 12, 2021, he received a copy of the Resolution dated October 12, 2020, which denied with finality his motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated February 3, 2020, which, among others, meted on him the penalty of suspension of six (6) months to practice law and that he began serving the aforesaid penalty of suspension on January 13, 2021, and seeking the Court's guidance on how he would comply with the order of the Court to pay complainant the amount of P20,000.00, considering that complainant's current address or whereabouts are unknown to him and in view thereof, respondent, begs the leave of Court to admit the attached motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 12, 2020; and
(2) GRANT:
(a) said Motion for Reconsideration dated January 26, 2021, of the Resolution dated October 12, 2020 (Anchored on a Violation of the Right to Due Process); and
(b) respondent's Motion to Lift Suspension dated July 14, 2021, stating that he had already fully served the penalty of suspension imposed on him, with attached Sworn Statement, IBP Certification and court certifications that he has not appeared in courts and desisted from the practice of law, and praying that an order be issued lifting his suspension and thereby allowing him to resume his practice of law.
The Report and Recommendation dated August 11, 2021 of the Office of the Bar Confidant is NOTED.
This Court resolves a Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by respondent Atty. Rene S. Grapilon (Atty. Grapilon) of the Resolution 2 of the Court dated October 12, 2020, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Acting on respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated February 3, 2020, which: (1) found respondent guilty of violating Rule 18.03, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (2) suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months; (3) ordered him to return to complainant the full amount of P20,000.00 and directed him to submit the Court proof of payment; and (4) sternly warned respondent that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely, the Court resolves to DENY the motion with FINALITY, as no substantial arguments were raised to warrant its reconsideration.
No further pleadings, motions, letters or other communications shall be entertained in this case. 3
Facts of the Case
On November 16, 2017, complainant Gemma S. Dumagan (Dumagan) filed a Letter-Complaint 4 against Atty. Grapilon. Dumagan alleged that on February 8, 2017, she obtained the services of Atty. Grapilon and paid him P20,000.00 to help her institute a criminal case against her sister-in-law, Daisy Silvestre (Silvestre). Atty. Grapilon issued an acknowledgement receipt 5 reflecting the amount paid. 6
Dumagan repeatedly went to Atty. Grapilon's office to request for an update on her case but he would tell her that he was preoccupied with many things. On the fourth week of March 2017, Dumagan retrieved all documents she gave to Atty. Grapilon due to his failure to institute the criminal action and her fear that the case against Silvestre will not push through. 7
Dumagan eventually obtained the services of another lawyer, Atty. Alfredo A. Castillo (Atty. Castillo) and paid P20,000.00 for his legal services. With his assistance, an Investigation Data Form 8 was executed on May 8, 2017 and an Information 9 for Grave Oral Defamation was filed against Silvestre on May 24, 2017.
Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commissioner
On April 6, 2018, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner Edmund T. Espina issued a Memorandum 10 recommending the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Grapilon for lack of merit. IBP Commissioner Espina explained that Dumagan failed to show that Atty. Grapilon willfully and deliberately abandoned Dumagan and resorted to falsehood, and unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the standards of the Code of Professional Conduct (CPR) to warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against him. 11
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
On January 19, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution, 12 the pertinent portion of which states:
x x x RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to DISMISS the complaint and INSTRUCT the Respondent to RETURN to the Complainant the un-utilized amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). 13
The Court's Resolution dated February 3, 2020
On February 3, 2020, the Court issued a Resolution, 14 the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Rene S. Grapilon GUILTY of violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective from notice. Respondent Atty. Rene S. Grapilon is ORDERED to return to complainant Gemma S. Dumagan the full amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) within 5 days from notice hereof and is DIRECTED to submit to this Court proof of such payment. Respondent Atty. Rene S. Grapilon is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphasis in the original)
In ordering the suspension of Atty. Grapilon, the Court explained that when he received the P20,000.00 from Dumagan, it was expected that he will serve his client with competence and attend to her cause with fidelity, care, and devotion. The Court held that he fell short in his duties when he did not bother to file any complaint before the court or exert any effort in handling the case for almost two months. The Court noted that he failed to return the unutilized money after Dumagan retrieved the documents of her case. These were considered acts in violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. 16
Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration
In his Motion for Reconsideration, 17 Atty. Grapilon maintained that he was denied due process of law and that he did not violate Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. 18 He pointed out that he had not officially received the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors and did not receive any summons from the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP requiring him to answer the complaint against him. 19 In support of his Motion for Reconsideration, he highlighted the different positions he held as member of the IBP Occidental Mindoro Chapter, his contributions to football in Occidental Mindoro, and the expressions of support he received from various members of his community. 20 He also argued that Dumagan is suffering from "Delusional Disorder." 21 Atty. Grapilon also attached a photocopy of a manager's check payable to Dumagan in the amount of P20,000.00 representing the money he received from her. He claimed that the check shall be at her disposal regardless of the outcome of the present case. 22
The Court's Resolution dated October 12, 2020
The Court issued the assailed Resolution 23 dated October 12, 2020, denying the motion with finality. 24
Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 12, 2020
On January 28, 2021, Atty. Grapilon filed another Motion for Reconsideration 25 reiterating inter alia that at no time in this case was he properly notified of any summons or order to answer, comment on, or oppose Dumagan's complaint against him. Atty. Grapilon stressed that although Dumagan may not have been happy about the complaint-affidavit he prepared — "because it was apparently not as long as she hoped or imagined it would be," this should not be equated with negligence or failing to serve his client with competence or to attend to her cause with diligence. 26
Motion to Lift Suspension dated July 14, 2021
Atty. Grapilon filed a Motion to Lift Suspension 27 dated July 14, 2021 stating that he had already fully served the penalty of suspension imposed on him and attached a Sworn Statement, IBP Occidental Mindoro Chapter Certification, and court certifications that he has not appeared in courts and desisted from the practice of law. He urged the Court to issue an order lifting his suspension and allowing him to resume his practice of law. 28
Consequently, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) issued its Report and Recommendation dated August 11, 2021. While the OBC agreed that Atty. Grapilon had fully served his 6-month suspension, it observed that he failed to submit any proof showing that the amount of P20,000.00 he received from Dumagan was returned to her, as directed in the Resolution dated February 3, 2020. Hence, the OBC recommended that Atty. Grapilon be required to fully comply with the Court's February 3, 2020 Resolution by submitting proof that the money has been returned to Dumagan. Pending submission of said proof, the OBC recommended that his Motion to Lift Suspension be held in abeyance. 29
Issues
The issues to be resolved in this Court's Resolution are the following:
1. Whether Atty. Grapilon was denied due process; and
2. Whether Atty. Grapilon is guilty of violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
Ruling of the Court
After taking a second hard look on the case, the Court finds that the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Grapilon is meritorious.
Atty. Grapilon was denied his
In Villanueva v. Atty. Alentajan, 30 the Court held that:
A complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. 31 (Citations omitted)
Due to the sui generis character of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, procedural lapses may be set aside before an administrative case may be pursued against an erring member of the Bar. Acting as the legal profession's sole disciplinary body, the Court is not strictly bound by the technical rules of procedure and evidence. 32 Thus, strict adherence to technical rules of procedure should not bar the Court. from disciplining erring lawyers and outweigh the Court's efforts to rid the legal profession of unscrupulous individuals who intentionally use their knowledge of the law to frustrate, rather than promote, the ends of justice.
Nevertheless, equally important in any disciplinary hearing is the right to due process. Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court states:
Section 5. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complaint.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, hence, denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one's day in court. The Court cannot simply brush aside the claim of Atty. Grapilon that he did not receive a copy of the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors and did not receive any summons from the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP requiring him to answer the complaint against him. 33
A thorough review of the records reveals that there was no indication that Atty. Grapilon was summoned by the IBP Commissioner to respond to the complaint against him nor was he furnished the pertinent notices to allow him to intelligently and properly defend himself.
There is no concrete evidence that a lawyer subject of a disbarment complaint may produce, other than his self-serving statement, that would prove that he was not given his right to be heard. Since he is supposedly unaware of the complaint against him, he cannot be expected to present any documentation to prove such fact. Nonetheless, it is observed that the Memorandum IBP Commissioner Espina issued indirectly supports the claim of Atty. Grapilon. Though IBP Commissioner Espina ruled in favor of Atty. Grapilon, noticeably absent from the Memorandum he issued was any discussion on the answer of Atty. Grapilon to the complaint against him. Not only does the failure to serve a copy of the complaint and require the respondent lawyer to answer constitute a violation of a procedural rule, it also infringes Atty. Grapilon constitutional right to due process.
In the case of Domingo v. Rubio, 34 the Court stressed the necessity of
x x x [A]dministrative proceedings brought against lawyers, including those in the public service, to make them be accountable for their acts or omissions in the exercise of their profession are not alternatives to reliefs that may be sought and obtained from the proper offices or agencies. The Court will exercise its disciplinary power only by observing due process and if the lawyer's administrative guilt is proved by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. This norm is aimed at preserving the integrity and reputation of the Law Profession, and at shielding lawyers, in general, due to their being officers themselves of the Court. Any complaint for disbarment or other disciplinary sanction brought against lawyers that is based on frivolous matters or proof, like this case, should be immediately dismissed because its plain objective is to harass or get even with the respondent. The public must be reminded that lawyers are professionals bound to observe and follow the strictest ethical canons, and to subject them to frivolous, unfounded and vexatious charges of misconduct and misbehavior is to do a disservice to the ideals of justice, and to disregard the Constitution and the laws to which all lawyers vow their enduring fealty. 35
Considering that Atty. Grapilon was deprived of his right to due process in the administrative proceedings at the IBP level, We deem it proper in this exceptional circumstance to review his case once again and give due course to his second Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Lift Suspension in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Atty. Grapilon is not guilty of violating
Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR state:
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 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR provides:
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. 36
In serving the cause of a client with competence and diligence, lawyers are reasonably expected to pursue the appropriate legal remedies available to the client within the bounds of the law. In this case, the Court finds that Dumagan failed to establish through substantial evidence a cause for disciplinary action against Atty. Grapilon.
Here, We find that the conduct of Atty. Grapilon does not violate Canon 18 of the CPR. Contrary to the claim Dumagan, Atty. Grapilon was not negligent nor remiss in his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence. It is worthy to point out the sworn statements of two lawyers Dumagan consulted which Atty. Grapilon attached to his first Motion for Reconsideration and should be given credence in the disposition of this administrative complaint.
Associate Provincial Prosecutor Sheila Muniz-Cortuna y De Mateo (ACP Muniz-Cortuna) attested that sometime in March or April 2017, Dumagan sought legal assistance from her and disclosed that she availed the services of Atty. Grapilon who, at that time, had already drafted a complaint for her. She alleged in her sworn statement that Dumagan "was quite agitated and not contented with the service she is getting because she was expecting an immediate filing of said case." 37 ACP Muniz-Cortuna added that:
x x x [O]n said date I remember that she showed us a draft of an Affidavit which according to her was made by her lawyer (Atty. Grapilon) but that she is not happy about it; 38 (Emphasis supplied)
Meanwhile, Atty. Castillo claimed that he was also consulted by Dumagan sometime in March to April 2017. He confirmed that Atty. Grapilon had already prepared a draft complaint-affidavit when Dumagan approached him as revealed in the following statements:
xxx xxx xxx
2. Upon examination of her documents, I noticed that she already consulted with Atty. Rene S. Grapilon, and that she has already, in her possession, the draft Complaint-Affidavit against her sister-in-law for oral defamation;
3. When I asked who made the draft Complaint-Affidavit, she told me that it was Atty. Rene S. Grapilon. However, considering that she was, in my view, adamant that I make another Complaint-Affidavit, I made another version which was submitted to the Prosecutor's Office. In fact, I also based my Complaint-Affidavit from the Complaint Affidavit that what (sic) already prepared by Atty. Rene S. Grapilon. 39 (Emphasis supplied)
To Our mind, the fact that Atty. Grapilon already prepared a draft complaint-affidavit in March or April 2017 belies Dumagan's claim that he abandoned her. Noticeably, Dumagan engaged the services of Atty. Grapilon on February 8, 2017 and approximately a month after, he had already prepared the draft for the requisite complaint-affidavit. Even the new counsel of Dumagan, Atty. Castillo, recognized that he based the complaint-affidavit he submitted in court from the draft Atty. Grapilon prepared. This hardly constitutes the negligence contemplated in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
Though Dumagan may not have been satisfied with the quality of Atty. Grapilon's work and his writing style, this cannot be equated to negligence and lack of competence and diligence. It must be remembered that a client who is not satisfied with the services of his or her lawyer does not mean that the lawyer is negligent nor remiss in his sworn duties. After all, a client who has little or no background at all in law and the judicial system may not be familiar with the exacting standards that must be observed in preparing pleadings to be filed in court. A client may also not have the same understanding of the law and may have a different expectation of the pace of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Atty. Grapilon should be dismissed for lack of merit.
While We find that the administrative complaint against Atty. Grapilon should be dismissed for lack of merit, he must be ordered to return the amount of P20,000.00 that he accepted from Dumagan when he agreed to take up the latter's case. Considering that Atty. Grapilon expressed his willingness to return the money he received and the fact that Dumagan terminated the services of Atty. Grapilon before he could even file the criminal complaint, We deem it proper to instruct him to return the money.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to DISMISS the administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Rene S. Grapilon. The order of suspension in the Resolution of the Court dated October 12, 2020 is LIFTED.
Atty. Grapilon is ORDERED to return to complainant Gemma S. Dumagan the full amount of P20,000.00 and to submit to the Court proof of payment. Atty. Grapilon is ORDERED to report to the Court the efforts he exerted in returning the money to complainant Gemma S. Dumagan.
SO ORDERED." (Zalameda, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 227-233.
2. Id. at 86-87.
3. Id. at 86.
4. Id. at 2-3.
5. Id. at 4.
6. Id. at 2.
7. Id. at 2-3.
8. Id. at 7.
9. Id. at 8.
10. Id. at 19-20.
11. Id. at 20.
12. Id. at 18.
13. Id. at 17.
14. Id. at 24-26.
15. Id. at 26.
16. Id. at 25.
17. Id. at 29-38.
18. Id. at 32.
19. Id. at 31.
20. Id. at 32-33.
21. Id. at 34-35.
22. Id. at 36, 58.
23. Id. at 86-87.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 227-232.
26. Id. at 228-230.
27. Id. at 235-236.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. A.C. No. 12161, June 8, 2020.
31. Id.
32. Sps. Yumang v. Atty. Alaestante, 833 Phil. 378, 387 (2018).
33. Rollo, p. 31.
34. 797 Phil. 581 (2016).
35. Id. at 590.
36. Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
37. Rollo, p. 82.
38. Id. at 82-A.
39. Id.