FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11582. July 10, 2019.]
EXECUTIVE SUITES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., complainant, vs.ATTY. AVERILL J. AMOR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11582 (Executive Suites Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Atty. Averill J. Amor). — On October 16, 2013, complainant Executive Suites Homeowners Association, Inc. (ESHAI), represented by Ma. Jesusa N. Ramos, Alfredo C. Robles, Jr., and Melvin P. Yuzon, filed a complaint 1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging Atty. Averill J. Amor (Atty. Amor) of professional misconduct.
Atty. Amor is one of the unit owners at Executive Suites in Malate, Manila. He was elected as treasurer of ESHAI from 2001 to 2005. 2 During Atty. Amor's tenure, there was only one water meter for all the 10 units in the building. Thus, all unit owners remitted to Atty. Amor their monthly contributions for water and association dues. When Atty. Amor vacated his unit and ceased to be the treasurer of ESHAI in 2005, his successors discovered that ESHAI had an unpaid water bill amounting to P42,000.00. 3 It was also discovered that Atty. Amor did not pay his share in the electricity and water consumption as well as association dues. 4 HTcADC
ESHAI, through its representatives, sent two letters to Atty. Amor: (1) letter 5 dated August 3, 2006 complaining about his unpleasant behavior towards a certain Myla Marie Y. Sablayan; and (2) final demand letter 6 dated February 5, 2008 directing Atty. Amor to pay P90,272.61 representing his unpaid obligation. 7 Atty. Amor proposed to pay P1,000.00 every month until his obligation is fully paid. However, ESHAI declined and demanded immediate payment of 50% of the total amount due, with the balance to be paid in monthly installments of P5,000.00. Records show that Atty. Amor paid P5,000.00 once on November 11, 2012. 8
Meanwhile, Atty. Amor filed a criminal complaint against the officers of ESHAI for malicious mischief and grave coercion before the City Prosecutor of Manila. He alleged that these officers disconnected his water and electric connections without any court authority. 9
On December 2, 2013, Atty. Amor filed his answer 10 to the disbarment complaint. He denied all the allegations against him and argued that these are self-serving, perjured, fabricated, baseless, inaccurate, and misleading.
Subsequently, ESHAI filed a supplemental complaint. 11 It questioned Atty. Amor's filing of a revenue complaint against ESHAI before the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and criminal complaints against its officers. ESHAI contended that these are harassment suits filed for the sole purpose of silencing its officers.
Acting on the complaint, Investigating Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano (Commissioner Adriano) recommended that Atty. Amor be suspended for a period of six months for misconduct. Commissioner Adriano found that: (i) except for the P5,000.00 evidenced by a receipt dated November 11, 2012, Atty. Amor has not paid his obligations; and (ii) he used his legal knowledge to harass ESHAI by filing cases against its officers. He likewise recommended that Atty. Amor be ordered to withdraw said cases. 12
The IBP-Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XXI-2014-759 13 dated October 11, 2014, adopted Commissioner Adriano's recommendation with modification. It increased the penalty to one year suspension and deleted the provision on the payment to complainant, without prejudice to the filing of a collection suit before the proper forum. CAIHTE
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-182 14 dated February 25, 2016, the IBP-Board of Governors denied Atty. Amor's motion for reconsideration.
We adopt Resolution Nos. XXI-2014-759 and XXII-2016-182 as to the finding that Atty. Amor is guilty of misconduct due to non-payment of debt. We do not, however, find that Atty. Amor used his legal knowledge to harass ESHAI and its officers.
I
This Court has held that gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, is a valid ground to suspend or disbar him or her because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law. Any wrongdoing, whether professional or non-professional, indicating unfitness for the profession justifies disciplinary action. 15 Gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment." 16
In Sosa v. Mendoza, 17 this Court ruled that failure to pay debts constitutes violation of Rule 1.01 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), because it is willful in character and implied a wrongful intent; it is not considered a mere error in judgment. Accordingly, this Court imposed a penalty of suspension for one year upon the erring lawyer.
Here, we agree with the IBP that Atty. Amor is guilty of gross misconduct due to non-payment of debts. 19
Although Atty. Amor contested the basis of the total amount of liability, he does not deny that he has outstanding debts with ESHAI. Although Atty. Amor argues that there is nothing in the records to show that he will not pay his indebtedness to ESHAI, 20 the same remain outstanding even after a decade. This indicates a wrongful intent to not honor his debts, a clear violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
II
The IBP-Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Adriano's recommendation that Atty. Amor be directed to withdraw the cases he filed against ESHAI and its officers as they are all harassment suits. 21
The record shows that Atty. Amor filed the following: (i) Criminal Case for Grave Coercion/Malicious Mischief (XV-07-INV.12L-08369-Manila) against Ma. Jesusa N. Ramos and Melvin P. Yuzon; 22 (ii) Revenue Complaint with the BIR for ESHAI's failure to comply with Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 65-2012 issued on October 31, 2012; 23 and (iii) criminal complaint for perjury and falsification (XV-03-INV-13L-13399-Quezon City) against Ma. Jesusa N. Ramos, Alfredo C. Robles, Jr., and Melvin P. Yuzon. 24 Considering the pendency of these cases, and contrary to the IBP's view, we deem it premature to perfunctorily dismiss the same as "harassment suits." Prudence dictates that we first allow the appropriate offices to determine and resolve the merits of each individual case. aScITE
Thus, the IBP-Board of Governors' finding that these cases are harassment suits is deleted.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Averill J. Amor GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR. Further, he is STERNLY WARNED that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be included in the records of the respondent, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 358.
3.Id. at 2.
4.Id. at 3, 19.
5.Id. at 14.
6.Id. at 15-17.
7.Id. at 16.
8.Id. at 166, 359.
9.Id. at 45-46.
10.Id. at 21-27.
11.Id. at 66-73.
12.Id. at 335-337.
13.Id. at 356-357.
14.Id. at 354-355.
15.Sosa v. Mendoza, A.C. No. 8776, March 23, 2015, 754 SCRA 61.
16.Id. at 68.
17.Id.
18. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
19. See Yuhico v. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 8391, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA 684, 688.
20.Rollo, p. 341.
21.Id. at 356.
22.Id. at 68.
23.Id. at 69.
24.Id.