Gallano v. Kito

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10880. January 27, 2016.]

JOSE B. GALLANO, ET AL., complainants, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO P. KITO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 27, 2016, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10880 (Jose B. Gallano, et al. v. Atty. Rodrigo P. Kito) — A verified complaint 1 for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.03 and Canon 3, Rule 3.01 and violation of his lawyer's oath was filed by Jose B. Gallano, Loreta Bulsao and Oswaldo Panggayan (complainants) against respondent Atty. Rodrigo P. Kito before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor, acting upon the complaint, submitted the following Report and Recommendation: 2

II. STATEMENTS OF FACTS

Respondent is the representative and lawyer for D[A] GAMA MINERALS and GAMBAN MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. and he is considered a son of Kibungan.

In pursuing the alleged interests of his client, [r]espondent applied highhanded techniques and applied "divide and conquer" strategies to make neighbors fight each other.

On April 29, 2010, complainants and the people of Palina were surprised when Da Gama brought to Palina (sic). The people formed human chains to prevent the mining company to enter Palina. A complaint was filed before the National Commission on Indigenous [P]eople (Annex "A") for [d]amages for [v]iolation of RA No. 837, [r]espondent representing the company entered his appearance (Annex "B")[.] Respondent applied a trick so that [complainants'] lawyer will withdraw.

Complainant then sought the services of Molintas and Partners Law Office. Respondent then filed a barrage of criminal cases designed to intimidate the people.

In one pleading submitted by [r]espondent, he sought the assistance of police and military claiming that the place is reportedly known to be a New People[']s Army infested area and the presence of leftist organization who are backing the opposition against the mining company.[ ] The truth is that there are no subversive elements in the Palina area. Respondent also claims that Palina is [rich] in "green gold" referring to the prohibited plant marijuana.

Despite the pendency of the NCIP cases, [r]espondent filed a case for damages in Makati City. Copies of summons and [c]omplaint as Annexes "D and E[."] Respondent began a campaign of divide and conquer. Respondent filed another damage suit before the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet (Annexes "F and G").

Through dirty [maneuvers] threatening that he will do something bad on the overseas employment application of the children of some members of the Palina community, he was able to cause some members to turn their back on the [c]omplainant[s].

Through threats and intimidation, [r]espondent was able to bring to his side two of the defe[n]dants in the Makati case. Respondent induced the people of Palina that he will dismiss the case against some of the members of the community filed in Makati City and in Kapangan if they allow the mining company to do the drilling operation.

III. RESPONDENT'S POSITION/DEFENSE

Da Gama Minerals, Inc. (Da Gama hereafter) was authorized to explore and develop the mining claims of Gamban Mining and Development Corp. (Gamban hereafter) covered by a mining lease contract with the Philippine Government denominated as MLC No. MRC 478 covering an area of 819 hectares located within the boundary of Tabbak, Palina, Kibungan, Benguet and Ampusongan, Bakun, Benguet.

On various dates between the period [of] February 2010 and August 2011, the personnel of Da Gama and its drilling contractor attempted to enter and bring their drilling equipment to the mining leased premises, however a group of persons (oppositors hereafter) among whom are the herein [c]omplainant Gallano and [c]omplainant Bulsao, with force, threat[,] intimidation and other tortuous acts and acting in concert with each other and cooperating with one another, prevented the personnel of Da Gama and its drilling contractor from entering the mining leased premises and drilling site and from exploring and drilling on the mining claims. AScHCD

During those occasions, untoward incidents took place which led to the filing of criminal charges and counter charges as well as civil complaints between D[a] Gama personnel and the [o]ppositors.

Respondent prosecuted these cases upon legal grounds and in good faith. He represented his clients with zeal within the bounds of the law and have employed only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of [his] clients, including engaging as co-counsel a veteran lawyer, Atty. Emiliano L. Gayo, who has been in an active law practitioner (sic) for more than fifty years, to be sure than any indiscreet and impulsive steps which [r]espondent might take can be checked, reviewed and prevented by him.

That [r]espondent and his co-counsel has withdrawn some cases to pave the way to a cordial, conciliatory, instead of adversarial approach to the oppositors for Da Gama and Gamban to maintain their good image in pursuing its mining operations in their mining areas.

Respondent denies that he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and his lawyer's oath[.] Respondent did not use highhanded technique (sic). The affidavit-complaint do[es] not show even remotely that [r]espondent committed any of such conduct deliberately, willfully or in any other manner.

The [c]omplaint does not present any merit to support the complainant[s'] call for disciplinary action but respondent still hope (sic) the conciliatory move he has taken towards dismissing/withdrawing all the cases even before the instant administrative complaint was filed may yet pave the way towards conciliation, cordiality and peace of all the parties concerned.

IV. ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT VIOLATED ANY PROVISIONS OF THE CANON OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY[ ] AND HIS LAWYER'S OATH.

V. FINDINGS

We found that [r]espondent is the lawyer of the mining company duly licensed and authorized under the laws of the Philippines to conduct drilling operation in the area.

That [r]espondent prosecuted those charges and counter-charges[,] when his client entered the mining area while the people tried to oppose their entry[,] only upon legal grounds and in good faith, employing only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.

That [r]espondent[,] to show their sincerity to complainants[,] has to withdraw some of the cases Da Gama, client of the [r]espondent[,] filed in Court hoping that this conciliatory moved may result in the better understanding between the mining company and the herein complainants and their community.

There is nothing in the actuation of the [r]espondent in the filing of cases against the complainants and his people that merits disciplinary action because they were performed in accordance with law and ethics of the law profession.

Lawyers should be given ample leeway in the pursuit of defense of their clients and to put them in a bad light for such advocacies, pursuits and defences, bodes ill for legal practitioners.

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the basis for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him must be established by clearly preponderance [of] evidence.

The case for consideration therefore cannot prosper in view of the failure of the complainant[s] to substantiate the charges against herein [r]espondent. In the absence of contrary evidence as in this case, what prevails is the presumption that [r]espondent performs his legal duties within the bounds of the Canon of Professional Responsibilit.[ ] n

VI. RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the case against [r]espondent Atty. Rodrigo P. Kito is hereby recommended to be dismissed.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. AcICHD

June 10, 2013, Pasig City.

On September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXI-2014-567 3 resolving to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Villamor, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

In the case at bar, no sufficient evidence was presented to prove that respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Rule 1.03 and Canon 3, Rule 3.01 and the lawyer's oath.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Board of Governors of the IBP is hereby AFFIRMED and the complaint against respondent is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-9.

2. Id. at 218-221.

3. Id. at 217.  

n   Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.