FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12980. April 28, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5137]
DOMINGO ESPAÑOLA AND ROSENDO ESPAÑOLA, JR., complainants, vs. ATTY. DAX MALONY MONTEALEGRE, ATTY. OMAR REDULA, ATTY. LOLITO BORBAJO, ATTY. RICHARD BAUZON, ATTY. BRICCIO JOSEPH BOHOLST, ATTY. EUTIQUIO SANCHEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 28, 2021which reads as follows: HEITAD
"A.C. No. 12980 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5137] — (Domingo Española and Rosendo Española, Jr., Complainants,v.Atty. Dax Malony Montealegre, Atty. Omar Redula, Atty. Lolito Borbajo, Atty. Richard Bauzon, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, Atty. Eutiquio Sanchez, Respondents.) — In disciplinary proceedings, the complainant must clearly establish the allegations in the complaint through substantial evidence. The Court is without authority to impose sanctions on the basis of surmises, conjectures, and speculations.
The Case
Through this administrative complaint, Domingo Española (Domingo) and Rosendo Española, Jr. (Rosendo, Jr.) (complainants, collectively) seek to hold Atty. Dax Malony Montealegre (Atty. Montealegre), Atty. Omar Redula (Atty. Redula), Atty. Lolito Borbajo (Atty. Borbajo), Atty. Richard Bauzon (Atty. Bauzon), Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst (Atty. Boholst), Atty. Eutiquio Sanchez (Atty. Sanchez) (respondent lawyers, collectively) administratively liable for allegedly participating or facilitating the falsification of a Deed of Heirship and Sale.
Antecedents
Complainants are the registered owners of a sixteen (16)-hectare land located in Canlaon City, Negros Oriental, covered by OCT No. (HV 2380) (HV 112) HV 88 1 issued on 14 May 1962 (subject land). The property was originally owned by their deceased parents, Rosendo Española (Rosendo) and Soledad Sevilla (Soledad).
Complainants alleged that on September 2009, Atty. Montealegre approached them and proposed that they bring the subject land into the government's voluntary offer to sell (VOS) program. Atty. Montealegre allegedly told them that the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) plans to build a road that would encroach on the subject land.
Complainants agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds of the sale between them and Atty. Montealegre on a 50-50 sharing basis. The latter allegedly agreed to handle all paper works and negotiations with DPWH.
One month after, or on October 2009, Atty. Montealegre purportedly informed complainants that his share would have to be increased to 75% because DPWH and City Hall officials would also be given their shares from the proceeds of the sale. Thinking that the proposed sharing of the selling price of the subject land was unfair, complainants rejected Atty. Montealegre's proposal.
However, complainants were surprised that on 24 November 2009, the heirs of Jose Perez, represented by respondent lawyers, filed a case 2 against them for quieting of title involving the subject land. The heirs of Jose Perez based their complaint on a Deed of Heirship and Sale 3 dated 28 September 1967 (Deed) executed by Rosendo and Domingo selling the subject land to Jose Perez (Jose), and notarized by Atty. Roque Agravante (Atty. Agravante).
In their answer to the quieting of title case, complainants claimed that the signatures of Rosendo and Domingo in the Deed were forged, as they never executed nor signed such an agreement. 4 They maintained that said Deed does not exist in the notarial records of Atty. Agravante. They narrated that Jose obtained a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Rosendo and Domingo for the purpose of mortgaging the subject land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). However, the SPA was executed merely to accommodate Jose.
Complainants posit that respondents planned and conspired to effectuate the simulated transfer since the heirs of Jose Perez are laymen who have no knowledge of fabricating a deed of sale. They suspect Atty. Montealegre to be responsible for the scheme since Jose's daughter, Fritzie Marie Perez-Montealegre, is his wife. They further claim that he stands to benefit from the transfer, especially since Jose died in 2007. Thus, respondents violated Canon 1, specifically Rules 1.01 5 and 1.02 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Montealegre's Position
For his part, Atty. Montealegre argued that the instant administrative case should be dismissed in view of the pendency of the case for quieting of title, where the issue of forgery is directly raised. 7 Nonetheless, Atty. Montealegre denied that the Deed was falsified. He claimed that the said Deed was notarized by Atty. Agravante and recorded in his notarial register as Doc. No. 1071, Page 98, Book III, series of 1967. The document was likewise published in Vanguard, a newspaper of general circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks, or in its 20, 27 November and 04 December 1967 issues. 8
Further, Atty. Montealegre alleged that Rosendo and Dominador Española 9 filed a petition for approval of the sale before the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which was favorably granted. 10 He also claimed that the title to the subject land was not immediately transferred in the name of the Jose and his wife, Maria Luisa, because Rosendo and Dominador failed to pay the estate and inheritance taxes of the estate of Soledad. 11 aDSIHc
Atty. Montealegre narrated that by virtue of the sale of the subject land, Jose, Maria Luisa, and their successors-in-interest have been in actual possession of the subject land since 28 September 1967. 12 They were also able to mortgage it to PNB. Since the title was still in the name of Rosendo and Dominador, they executed an SPA to facilitate the loan application of Jose. 13 When Jose died in 1981, 14 his eldest son, Manuel Perez, continued to cultivate the subject land by planting sugarcane, coconuts and ipil-ipil trees. 15
The heirs of Jose Perez allegedly offered the property to the DAR but they discovered that complainants also tried to offer the subject land to the DAR under the VOS. 16 They claimed that the complaint for quieting of title was filed in order to finally settle the controversy between the parties. 17
Report and Recommendation
Investigating Commissioner Gilbert I. Macatangay recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondents. He found that the quantum of evidence required for disciplinary proceedings against lawyers was not met. 18
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
The Board of Governors, in a Resolution 19 dated 12 October 2019 approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue
The only issue in this case is whether or not respondents are administratively liable.
Ruling of the Court
Jurisprudence is settled that in disciplinary proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. 20
In the present case, the complainants failed to meet the quantum of proof to establish that respondents conspired to falsify the Deed of Heirship and Sale. Other than supposed relationship of Montealegre to the Perezes, the allegations in their complaint miserably failed to show the supposed culpable acts of each of the respondents, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
27. We respectfully submit that the falsification could not have been possible without the careful planning and active participation of a "legal mind" since logic and common sense dictate that the members of the Perez family who signed the complaint for Quieting of Title, including Mrs. Fritzie Marie Perez-Montealegre (the wife of respondent Atty. Montealegre) being all laymen, they are technically incapable of carefully fabricating a Deed of Heirship and Sale, especially so that the same purports to have been executed way back in 1967 using the name of a legitimate notary public.
28. Given the circumstances and peculiarities of the instant case and since the Perez family and their son-in-law (Atty. Montealegre), as well as their lawyers (herein respondents) stand to benefit from the falsification, the logical conclusion is that respondents are involved, directly or indirectly, for the commission of the said offense.
29. Or, at the very least, the respondents are presumed to have aided, abetted or consented, or acquiesced to the said falsification. (Emphasis ours)
Evidently, the complaint only made a general allegation on respondents' supposed administrative culpability. Certainly, without specific factual allegations and competent proof establishing them, this Court is bereft of basis to sanction respondents.
Further, whether the Deed of Heirship and Sale is falsified should first be determined in another proceeding where such factual issue has been raised and fully ventilated. Verily, this Court, in recent cases, 21 has declined to pass upon the issue of falsification or forgery in a disbarment proceeding such as the present case, viz.:
We emphasize that allegations of falsification or forgery must be competently proved because falsification or forgery cannot be presumed. As such, the allegations should first be established and determined in appropriate proceedings, like in criminal or civil cases, for it is only by such proceedings that the last word on the falsity or forgery can be uttered by a court of law with the legal competence to do so. A disbarment proceeding is not the occasion to determine the issue of falsification or forgery simply because the sole issue to be addressed and determined therein is whether or not the respondent attorney is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
Indeed, while this Court is vigilant in cleansing the profession of underserving individuals, it cannot blindly impose sanctions to lawyers without the requisite proof to support it. Section 3 (a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides that every person is presumed innocent of a crime or wrongdoing. Just like any individual, lawyers are not exempted from the benefits of the presumption of innocence. As officers of the court, they are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath. 22
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against respondents Atty. Dax Malony Montealegre, Atty. Omar Redula, Atty. Lolito Borbajo, Atty. Richard Bauzon, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, Atty. Eutiquio Sanchez is hereby DISMISSED.
The Notice of Resolution dated October 12, 2019 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors transmitted by letter dated November 27, 2020 of Director Randall C. Tabayoyong, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records and USB containing the PDF file of the case, is NOTED. ATICcS
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 112-114.
2.Id. at 98-106.
3.Id. at 22-24.
4.Id. at 25, 27.
5. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
6. Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
7.Rollo, p. 53.
8.Id. at 48-49, 119.
9. It should be noted that the Deed stated Domingo as the co-seller of the subject land and not Dominador.
10.Rollo, p. 49.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 49-50.
13.Id. at 50.
14.Id. at 110.
15.Id. at 50.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 51.
18. Copy attached to the rollo.
19. Copy attached to the rollo.
20.Zara v. Joyas, A.C. No. 10994, 10 June 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
21.Apurillo v. Bermejo, A.C. No. 12688, 20 January 2020; Flores-Salado v. Villanueva, Jr., 796 Phil. 40 (2016); A.C. No. 11099, 27 September 2016 [Per J. Bersamin]; Arienda v. Aguila, 495 Phil. 264 (2005); A.C. No. 5637, 12 April 2005 [Per J. Chico-Nazario].
22.Gayo v. Causing, A.C. No. 12618, 26 January 2021.