THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11888. March 7, 2018.]
EL GRANDE AGUIRRE COMMERCE AND TRADE ORGANIZATION (EL ACTO), complainant, vs. ATTY. ROMMEL A. FRIAS,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 7, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11888 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3609] (El Grande Aguirre Commerce and Trade Organization (EL ACTO) v. Atty. Rommel A. Frias) — In its Complaint 1 dated October 16, 2012, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant El Grande Aguirre Commerce and Trade Organization (El Grande), represented by Rocelo P. Bucad (Bucad) and Roberto T. Reyes (Reyes), charged Atty. Rommel A. Frias (respondent) of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath.
According to El Grande, respondent was the president of the United BF Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) since March 1, 2011; that, as president, he spearheaded the construction of the annex of the association's clubhouse without a building permit in May 2012; that respondent ordered the continuation of the said construction even though there was an Abiso ng Paglabag2 from the Office of the City Building Official and a Notice of Violation 3 from the Local Zoning Administrator; that respondent committed a similar violation for the construction of the main gate and guardhouse of BF Homes along Aguirre Avenue without the requisite permits; and that these unlawful constructions are violations of Canon 1 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath. EcTCAD
In his Answer, 4 respondent countered that it was the Board of Directors (BOD) that managed the general affairs and the conduct of the business of the association, and not the president; that the repairs of the roof of the annex building were made in good faith to prevent potential injury or threat against the employees and homeowners; that he believed in good faith that a construction permit was not needed because the BF Homes project had been previously issued a development permit; and that, assuming that there is a need for a building permit, the association should be given sufficient time to comply with the same.
In their Manifestation 5 dated July 19, 2013, Bucad and Reyes stated that they are withdrawing their complaint and that they will be filing a new complaint with themselves as complainants.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 6 dated January 18, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Leo B. Malagar (investigating commissioner) found that the complaint lacks merit. It noted the manifestation, filed by Bucad and Reyes, that they are withdrawing the complaint but proceeded with the disquisition/resolution of the administrative case. The investigating commissioner observed that respondent should not be held liable for the unauthorized construction because it was the BOD that manages the general affairs and the conduct of the association's business. It opined that respondent exercised good faith in the construction of the clubhouse annex (annex building) because it was merely intended to prevent any potential injury to the employees and homeowners.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-602, 7 the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the investigating commissioner dismissing the complaint.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the investigating commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP Board.
It is a well-established rule that for a charge to warrant disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the presumption that the lawyer is innocent of the charge prevails. 8
In this case, the investigating commissioner properly found that respondent did not commit bad faith in the alleged construction of the annex building. It is the BOD that manages the general affairs and the conduct of the business of the association. Thus, the decision to construct the annex building was within the authority of the BOD, and respondent, as president, only executed it.
Further, respondent exercised good faith in the construction of the annex building because it was merely intended to prevent any potential injury to the employees and homeowners. Its roof had to be promptly repaired out of extreme urgency and necessity to prevent collapse by termite infestation. As pointed out by respondent, assuming that a building permit is required and the development permit of BF Homes is insufficient, the association should be given ample time to secure the same. HSAcaE
Based on the foregoing, respondent cannot be disciplined for exercising good faith. The default rule is presumption of good faith. On the other hand, bad faith is never presumed. It is a conclusion to be drawn from facts. Its determination is thus a question of fact and is evidentiary. There is no evidence, though, to show that the respondent's acts as president were coupled with bad faith, malice, or ill-will. The presumption of good faith, therefore, stands in this case. 9
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved. The complaint against Atty. Rommel A. Frias is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." HESIcT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2.Id. at 7.
3.Id. at 8.
4.Id. at 43-47.
5.Id. at 115.
6.Id. at 122-128.
7.Id. at 120.
8.Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-633 (2004).
9.Paguia v. Molina, A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014.