FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11416. January 25, 2023.]
ROGELIO UY EVIOTA, complainant, vs.ATTY. GENARO N. MONTEFALCON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 25, 2023which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 11416 (Rogelio Uy Eviota v. Atty. Genaro N. Montefalcon). — Before the Court is a disbarment complaint 1 dated January 12, 2016 filed by Rogelio Uy Eviota (Eviota) against Atty. Genaro N. Montefalcon (Atty. Montefalcon).
In his complaint, Eviota alleged that he is a co-owner of a house and lot situated in Poblacion Zone IV, Iba, Zambales. The same property was leased by Atty. Montefalcon who paid a monthly rental fee of PHP6,000.00. Atty. Montefalcon supposedly failed to pay rent due to Eviota. Thus, on February 11, 2005, Eviota filed a complaint 2 for ejectment against Atty. Montefalcon before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Iba, Zambales alleging non-payment of accrued rentals for seven months. 3
Eviota also alleged that Atty. Montefalcon willfully destroyed portions of the rented property and carted away Eviota's personal belongings placed in the said property. These allegations led to the filing of criminal complaints by Eviota sometime in August 2008 against Atty. Montefalcon for Malicious Mischief and Qualified Theft before the MTC and Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, respectively. 4
For his part, Atty. Montefalcon denied destroying any portion of the rented property and pilfering Eviota's personal belongings. 5 As to the allegation of non-payment of rent, he countered that the amount of rent in arrears represented advances made by him for the necessary repairs of the property. 6
With respect to the ejectment suit filed by Eviota, the MTC, in a Decision 7 dated July 8, 2005, ordered Atty. Montefalcon to vacate and surrender the leased property to Eviota, and pay the latter PHP65,000.00 representing unpaid rentals thereon. While his appeal was pending before the RTC, Atty. Montefalcon voluntarily vacated Eviota's property. Consequently, the RTC terminated the ejectment case. Meanwhile, Eviota did not pursue his claim of unpaid rentals. 8
As to the criminal cases filed against Atty. Montefalcon, the MTC, in a Decision 9 dated August 8, 2018, acquitted Atty. Montefalcon of the crime of Malicious Mischief based on reasonable doubt. The MTC, however, ordered him to indemnify Eviota the amount of PHP87,237.60 representing unpaid rentals on the leased premises. 10 On appeal, the RTC, in its Decision 11 dated February 4, 2019, reversed and set aside the MTC Decision, insofar as the civil aspect is concerned, and deleted the MTC's order directing Atty. Montefalcon to pay Eviota the amount of PHP87,237.60 representing unpaid rentals on the property.
In a Decision 12 dated February 8, 2017, the RTC acquitted Atty. Montefalcon of the crime of Qualified Theft based on reasonable doubt.
Report and Recommendation of the
In a Report and Recommendation 13 dated December 20, 2020, the Investigating Commissioner 14 recommended that Atty. Montefalcon be reprimanded and warned for his continued occupation of the property and refusal to pay the rent in arrears due to Eviota even when a case for ejectment was filed against him. 15
In its Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2021-10-06 16 dated October 16, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the complaint against Atty. Montefalcon. In its Extended Resolution 17 dated January 21, 2022, the IBP Board of Governors explained that Atty. Montefalcon's conduct in defending his interests should not be taken against him, and is not considered conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the records of this case, this Court adopts and accepts the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to dismiss the complaint against Atty. Montefalcon for lack of merit.
The penalty of disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. Thus, the quantum of proof required in administrative cases for disbarment against lawyers is substantial evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. 18 Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The basic rule is that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. 19
Here, aside from the allegations in the disbarment complaint, no other evidence was presented by Eviota to substantiate the same. Eviota did not attempt to submit statements from other persons who could attest to the supposed acts of misconduct committed by Atty. Montefalcon. As it is, his statements were uncorroborated and self-serving. Moreover, the criminal cases that appear as Eviota's bases for the complaint for disbarment have already been dismissed after due proceedings, which eventually led to Atty. Montefalcon's acquittal on the malicious mischief and qualified theft charges.
The Investigating Commissioner, however, finds fault in Atty. Montefalcon when he continued to occupy Eviota's property and supposedly refused to pay rent in arrears even when a case for ejectment was filed against him. However, it cannot be said that Atty. Montefalcon unjustly refused to vacate the property and evaded payment of his monetary obligation to Eviota. This is because he cannot be legally compelled to do so while the civil case is still pending resolution before the MTC, and until such time that the lower court's decision becomes final and executory. In fact, much like Eviota, Atty. Montefalcon is free to exploit all legal remedies available to him in order to defend his interests. In any case, it bears noting that when the MTC rendered its decision in the ejectment suit, Atty. Montefalcon voluntarily and immediately vacated the rented property. 20 Meanwhile, it appears that Eviota no longer pursued his claim of unpaid rentals from Atty. Montefalcon. 21
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, We do not find any basis to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on Atty. Montefalcon. Perforce, the disbarment complaint must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the disbarment complaint against ATTY. GENARO N. MONTEFALCON is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Notice of Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2021-10-06 dated October 16, 2021 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors, transmitted by Letter dated March 29, 2022 of Atty. Avelino B. Sales, Jr., Director for Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, together with the records and flash drive file; and the Extended Resolution dated January 21, 2022 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors, are both NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Rosario, J., on official leave.
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. 1-4.
2. Id. at 5-8.
3. Id. at 1.
4. Id. at 2.
5. Id. at 31-32.
6. Id. at 52.
7. Duplicate rollo, pp. 13-19.
8. Rollo, p. 190. See also Duplicate rollo, p. 61.
9. Rollo, pp. 57-79.
10. Id. at 78-79.
11. Id. at 80-83.
12. Id. at 96-112.
13. Id. at 181-188.
14. Atty. Ma. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate.
15. Rollo, pp. 187-188.
16. Id. at 179-180.
17. Id. at 189-192.
18. See Parungao v. Lacuanan, A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020, citing BSA Tower Condominium Corp. v. Reyes II, 833 Phil. 588, 595 (2018).
19. Id.
20. Rollo, p. 191.
21. Id.