FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11327. July 30, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4480]
ELIZABETH ECHIPARE, complainant, vs.ATTY. MARIA ROSARIO S. TAM-ARMAMENTO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 30, 2019 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11327 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4480](Elizabeth Echipare vs. Atty. Maria Rosario S. Tam-Armamento)
For resolution is an administrative case against Atty. Maria Rosario S. Tam-Armamento (respondent) for deceitful conduct, stemming from a complaint filed by complainant Elizabeth Echipare (Elizabeth).
In her Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed on January 20, 2015 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, Elizabeth alleged that as an act of gratitude for living in with her, her live-in partner, Kevin Carrier (Kevin), an Australian national, gave her P500,000.00 which she used to purchase a 500-square meter lot in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, formerly owned by Vivencio Persia (Vivencio). In the preparation of the necessary documents, they engaged the services of respondent, who then prepared and let Elizabeth sign a deed of absolute sale. They also gave respondent the amount of P70,000.00 to be used in the transfer of the title of the land in the name of Elizabeth.
Sometime in 2014, after her relationship with Kevin went sour, Elizabeth went to the office of respondent to follow-up the titling of the parcel of land in her name. Respondent assured Elizabeth that the title of the property was in her name. Elizabeth then went to the Register of Deeds (RD) to secure a copy of the title but to her dismay and disappointment, she discovered that there was no title in her name and that the deed of sale which she signed was not even registered with the RD. What was registered instead was another deed of absolute sale in the name of Leonardo Galicia (Galicia) covering the same parcel of land which she had purchased. The deed of absolute sale executed by Vivencio in favor of Galicia was also notarized by respondent. Elizabeth then confronted respondent, who told her that the earlier deed of sale was already canceled.
In her Answer, 2 respondent denied Elizabeth's allegations in her complaint. Respondent claimed that sometime in 2010, Vivencio approached her and engaged in her services. Vivencio told respondent that he had a buyer for his land and that they already agreed on the purchase price as well as the other conditions of the sale. The problem, however, was that the buyer, Kevin Carrier, is a foreigner and, being a foreigner, the land cannot be registered in his name. Vivencio and Kevin agreed that the property be placed instead in the name of Kevin's girlfriend, herein complainant Elizabeth Echipare, in trust for Kevin. After respondent had prepared the Contract to Sell, the parties then went to her office, signed the document in her presence, and she then notarized the same. The consideration for the land was then paid by Kevin to Vivencio.
Two years thereafter, or in 2012, Vivencio and Kevin again went to her office requesting that a deed of sale be prepared covering the same property in favor of Leonard Galicia, a longtime friend of Kevin. It turned out that Kevin and Elizabeth had a falling out due to the latter's perceived infidelity. Kevin decided that he should not be represented by Elizabeth anymore because if the property would be registered in Elizabeth's name, Elizabeth would be able to sell it and Kevin would have no place to live. Respondent then prepared and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Galicia. Thereafter, the title of the property was tendered by Vivencio to Kevin. Subsequently, the title of the property was transferred in the name of Galicia. A Contract of Lease was then executed between Kevin and Galicia allowing Kevin to live in the property for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.
In his Report and Recommendation 3 dated June 15, 2015, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended that the case against respondent be dismissed since the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof to warrant the imposition of administrative penalty against respondent for the charge of having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and malpractice. The Investigating Commissioner held that respondent properly followed the procedure in the Notarial Law and that she relied in good faith upon the representation of Vivencio and Kevin of their voluntary act in executing a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Galicia.
Subsequently, the Board of Governors of IBP issued Resolution No. XXI-2015-582 adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 4
Ruling of the Court
This administrative complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.
As found by the IBP Board of Governors, complainant Elizabeth failed to establish by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Elizabeth alleged that respondent employed deceit when the latter cancelled the deed of sale in her favor, knowing fully well that she is the lawful owner of said parcel of land covered by the deed of sale as it was respondent herself who duly notarized the same.
A review of the facts fails to show any deceitful conduct on the part of respondent in executing and notarizing the documents being questioned by Elizabeth. It should be noted that what respondent executed and notarized between Vivencio and Elizabeth was a contract to sell, not a deed of sale as claimed by Elizabeth. Being a Contract to Sell, the ownership of the property is not to pass until full payment of the purchase price. No evidence was shown that Elizabeth fully settled the purchase price and a final deed of sale was executed and delivered in her favor. The ownership of the property remained with Vivencio. Hence, Elizabeth's claim that she is now the lawful owner of said property has no legal basis and she cannot, therefore, demand that the title be transferred in her name.
There is no issue as to the manner by which respondent notarized the Contract to Sell. Elizabeth did not raise any irregularity as to how respondent notarized the same. As averred by respondent, the parties to the contract appeared before her, they were able to understand and read the document, and they personally signed the same in front of her. In fact, Elizabeth admitted in her Complaint-Affidavit that respondent made her sign the document and had it notarized by her at the same time.
Likewise, respondent's act in executing a Deed of Absolute Sale by and between Vivencio and Galicia and notarizing the same cannot be considered a deceitful act. Be it noted that Vivencio remained to be the registered owner of the property, hence, he had all the right to sell it to Galicia. As to the reasons why the sale between Vivencio and Elizabeth did not materialize and they had to execute another deed of sale in favor of Galicia, respondent just had to rely in good faith upon the representations of the parties, seeing that the execution of the document was voluntarily done by the parties personally in respondent's presence.
The intention of Kevin to use Elizabeth as a dummy is beyond the knowledge of respondent. In fact, the Affidavits of Kevin 5 and Vivencio 6 show that respondent was not privy to their negotiations. The prior agreements/negotiations of Kevin, Vivencio and Elizabeth were made outside respondent's office and done privately among them. The parties only went to her office to sign the document and then she notarized the same. Further, it is beyond the control of respondent if Kevin gave Elizabeth, her then live-in partner, the money to buy a real property as an act of gratitude and appreciation for their long term relationship.
"[C]onsidering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar." 7 In the absence of preponderant evidence, as in this case, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against her must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant administrative case against respondent Atty. Maria Rosario S. Tam-Armamento is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 14-30.
3.Id. at 245-249.
4.Id. at 243-244.
5.Id. at 35-37.
6.Id. at 50.
7.Castro, et al. v. Atty. Bigay, et al., 813 Phil. 882, 888 (2017). Citation omitted.