FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11725. February 6, 2019.]
ARLIE D. GUICO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. EXEQUIEL M. DE GUZMAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 6, 2019 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11725 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4513] (Arlie D. Guico vs. Atty. Exequiel M. De Guzman)
The instant administrative case stemmed from the verified complaint 1 dated February 5, 2015 filed by complainant Arlie D. Guico against respondent Atty. Exequiel M. De Guzman for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
Facts of the Case
In his verified complaint, the complainant said that the respondent served as counsel for Mrs. Cecilia Hata in a case for unjust vexation earlier filed by him and his wife, Zoe Guico, before the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan. The complainant reported that on February 2, 2015, during the preliminary conference of the said case, the presiding judge referred the parties for mediation before the Office of the Clerk of Court. During the mediation, the complainant alleged that the respondent had been interrupting them and insisting on his client's condition for the two parties to say sorry to each other and end the case with the kind of settlement that they want. The complainant refused to accept the condition, hence, the respondent asked for the termination of the mediation. The respondent went out of the room and said, "Ang tigas nito eh!" Complainant then answered, "Anong matigas, Attorney? Bakit ninyo kami pinepersonal?" Thereafter, they glared at each other and the respondent said, "Ano gusto mo?Demanda kita, kasuhan kita?" Complainant's wife approached them and tried to pacify the situation. As they were returning to the trial court for preliminary hearing, respondent continued to talk and said "Kakasuhan ko 'to!"2
In his Verified Answer, 3 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and explained that he was merely protecting and representing the cause and best interest of his client.
Both parties appeared before the mandatory conference held on June 18, 2015. Thereafter, they submitted their respective position papers.
Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner and
On December 4, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera (Commissioner Cabrera) submitted a report 4 recommending the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent for lack of merit. Commissioner Cabrera pointed out that the IBP-CBD cannot investigate or make an inquiry into the conduct of the mediation/conciliation by the trial court's clerk of court merely to dissect and isolate any administrative liability which a lawyer may have committed during the conciliation.
The foregoing words which complainant may have uttered cannot be interpreted as insulting or abusive words which would cause dishonor or contempt upon another person. The said statements also cannot be interpreted to be words of undue interference considering that respondent was not at all prohibited from attending in the mediation proceedings. The complainant's expectation that respondent would just listen and absorb what he hears from the complainant is unreasonable.
In a Resolution 5 dated August 27, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Cabrera after finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules.
On June 20, 2017, the IBP-CBD transmitted the notice of the resolution and the case records to this Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. 6 As per verification of the Court, neither party has filed a motion for reconsideration nor a petition for review thereafter.
Ruling of the Court
After a perusal of the records of the instant case, the Court finds the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and Board of Governors proper under the circumstances.
In this case, the complainant failed to attribute clear and preponderant proof to show that the respondent committed an infraction in violation of the CPR which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against him. Apart from complainant's bare allegations of respondent's utterances and conduct during the mediation proceedings, no evidence was presented nor was there any showing from the factual circumstances surrounding this case that respondent committed any unlawful act or any violation of his oath as a lawyer and the CPR. Clearly, the records of this case are devoid of any evidence that would tend to show any ill-motive or irregularity on the part of the respondent.
Indubitably, the factual backdrop of the case only shows that respondent merely discharged his duty as his clients' counsel and nothing more. The respondent was only performing his duties as counsel in zealously protecting and fighting for the interest of his client. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to that cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve his client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. 7
In administrative cases, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge. 8 Even more, an administrative case against a member of the bar must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof. 9 Evidently, in this case, the complainant failed to discharge such burden warranting the dismissal of the administrative complaint against the respondent.
As a final note, the Court reiterates that its duty is not limited to the discipline of erring members of the bar but likewise extends to protecting them from patently frivolous complaints. In De Leon v. Atty. Castelo, 10 the Court held that:
A lawyer's reputation, indeed, is a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. 11
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Exequiel M. De Guzman is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The corrected Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-467 dated August 27, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors which adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dated December 4, 2015 and dismissed the complaint, transmitted by letter dated June 5, 2017 of Director Ramon S. Esguerra, Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records and compact disc containing the PDF file of the case, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 13-18.
4.Id. at 153-165.
5.Id. at 151-152.
6.Id. at 150.
7.Lucila Barbuco v. Atty. Raymundo Beltran, A.C. No. 5092, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 57.
8.Atty. Rosita Dela Fuente Torres, et al. v. Atty. Bayani Dalangin, A.C. No. 10758, December 5, 2017.
9.Manubay v. Garcia, A.C. No. 4700, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 236.
10. A.C. No. 8620, January 21, 2011, 639 SCRA 237.
11.Id. at 252.