Gulanes v. Carrasco

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 13273. August 17, 2022.][Formerly CBD-18-5754]

VIVENCIO GULANES, petitioner, vs.ATTY. MARIANO B. CARRASCO, ATTY. EVANGELINE T. CARRASCO, ATTY. AL AN E. GEÑOSO, AND ATTY. ANGELINE MARIE T. CARRASCO-GEÑOSO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 17, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC

"A.C. No. 13273 [Formerly CBD-18-5754] (Vivencio Gulanes v. Atty. Mariano B. Carrasco, Atty. Evangeline T. Carrasco, Atty. Al An E. Geñoso, and Atty. Angeline Marie T. Carrasco-Geñoso). — This is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Mariano B. Carrasco (Atty. Mariano), Atty. Evangeline T. Carrasco (Atty. Evangeline), Atty. Al An E. Geñoso (Atty. Al An), and Atty. Angeline Marie T. Carrasco-Geñoso (Atty. Angeline) (collectively, respondents) filed by Vivencio Gulanes (Vivencio), for allegedly acquiring property belonging to the latter.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Sometime in 1981, Vivencio secured a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) amounting to P262,000.00. As security for the loan, he executed a real estate mortgage in favor of DBP over his 23.2287-hectare property covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-12071, 2 described as Lot No. 3220 Cad-630-D located in Sitio Mamaon, Barangay Indulang, Talakag, Bukidnon. When he defaulted in his loan payments, DBP foreclosed the property 3 and a certificate of sale was issued in their favor in 1994. After the lapse of one year, Vivencio failed to redeem the property. Meanwhile, his son, Restie Gulanes (Restie), mortgaged his own property covered by OCT No. P-12757 in favor of DBP to secure another loan. 4

In 2006, Vivencio secured the legal services of Atty. Evangeline and Atty. Mariano to handle the illegal settlers in his property 5 as well as to facilitate the repurchase of lots from DBP. 6 In 2009, the same lawyers also represented Restie in the court proceedings against Agrinanas Development Co. and DBP regarding his property covered by OCT No. P-12757. 7

In his Complaint, 8 Vivencio claimed that respondents fraudulently secured a Wavier of Rights 9 from various land reform beneficiaries occupying his property covered by OCT No. P-12071. He argued that although the waivers did not mention in whose favor they were given, they were notarized by Atty. Angeline on August 7, 2006. He alleged that respondents became the owners and possessors of his property by virtue of the said waivers as they even placed a tarpaulin 10 over the property stating that they are the owners thereof. Thus, he sought the disbarment of the respondents for being interested in and acquiring their client's property under litigation. 11

In their Answer, 12 respondents denied the allegations against them. They argued that the properties they own and occupy are different from the property claimed by Vivencio. They claimed that they acquired their 10 parcels of land from the Samuel family in 2017, as shown by the deeds of sale and certificates of title 13 proving that the Samuel family were the previous title holders of their properties. 14

On January 24, 2019, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) directed both parties to appear for a Mandatory Conference scheduled on March 13, 2019, and to submit their respective Mandatory Conference Briefs at least three days before the scheduled hearing. 15 The Notice of Mandatory Conference also stated that a party's non-appearance shall be deemed a waiver of the right to participate in the proceedings.

On March 11, 2019, the IBP CBD received respondents' Mandatory Conference Brief. 16 However, on the date of the scheduled conference on March 13, 2019, only Atty. Evangeline appeared for herself and on behalf of the other respondents. On the same day, the IBP CBD received Vivencio's Entry of Appearance with Motion to Reset 17 the mandatory conference which was granted over Atty. Evangeline's objection. Accordingly, the mandatory conference was cancelled and reset to April 25, 2019. 18

On April 16, 2019, the IBP CBD received Vivencio's Mandatory Conference Brief and Motion to Refer the Case to the Misamis Oriental IBP Chapter to Gather Evidence and Submit Recommendation, 19 which respondents opposed. 20

During the rescheduled Mandatory Conference, only Atty. Evangeline appeared once again for herself and on behalf of the other respondents. In an Order 21 dated April 25, 2019, the IBP CBD denied Vivencio's Motion to Postpone the April 25, 2019 Hearing with Motion to Refer the case to the Misamis Oriental IBP Chapter to Gather Evidence and Submit Recommendation for lack of merit. It explained that according to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, all cases filed before or referred to the IBP shall be heard by the CBD in its principal office at the IBP building in Pasig City. Subsequently, the mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were ordered to submit their respective position papers to expedite the proceedings. Respondents and Vivencio filed their Position Papers on June 10, 2019 22 and June 24, 2019, 23 respectively.

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In the Report and Recommendation 24 dated November 6, 2019, IBP-CBD Commissioner Marissa V. Manalo recommended that the disbarment complaint be dismissed. The Investigating Commissioner found that the parcels of land acquired by respondents from the Samuel family are different from Vivencio's 23.3287-hectare property covered by OCT No. P-12071. The dispositive portion of the recommendation reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. 25

In a Resolution 26 dated June 12, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and to dismiss the petition.

In 2020, during the pendency of the case, Atty. Mariano passed away. 27

Issue

Whether respondents may be held administratively liable for being interested in and acquiring their client's property under litigation.

Our Ruling

The Court adopts the findings and approves the recommendation of the IBP to dismiss the disbarment complaint against respondents.

In disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, 28 and complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence. 29 If complainants fail to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their claims are based, the respondents are not obliged to prove their exception or defense. 30

In the case at bar, Vivencio failed to discharge the burden.

Article 1491 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another;

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. 31 (Emphasis supplied)

For lawyers, the prohibition applies to all properties of their clients which were subject of a litigation that they took part in. The prohibition seeks to prevent any undue influence of lawyers upon their client on account of their fiduciary and confidential relationship them. 32 As explained in Molabola v. Cabarroguis, 33 the rationale behind the prohibition is that:

[P]ublic policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these persons. It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. However, the said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving the client's property. Consequently, without such elements, no violation of Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code attaches. 34

Vivencio claims that respondents fraudulently acquired possession over his property covered by OCT No. P-12071, which was under litigation when he secured respondents' services as his counsel. However, as patently shown by the evidence on record, the 10 parcels of land owned by respondents are entirely separate and distinct from Vivencio's property covered by OCT No. P-12071. Moreover, the 10 parcels of land in possession of respondents were not acquired through a waiver of rights as claimed by Vivencio, but through various Deeds of Absolute Sale dated March 31, 2017 with the Samuel family. Furthermore, Vivencio mortgaged the said property to DBP and failed to redeem it after the lapse of one year. Thus, he was no longer the owner of the property at the time he filed the complaint.

Notably, as even stated by Vivencio in his Complaint, he only secured the services of Atty. Mariano and Atty. Evangeline back in 2006. It behooves Vivencio to explain why he is also seeking the disbarment of Atty. Al An and Atty. Angeline. Nevertheless, even the lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Mariano and Atty. Evangeline on one hand, and Vivencio, on another, had already ceased long before respondents acquired the questioned properties in 2017. Simply put, there is no iota of evidence to substantiate Vivencio's claim that respondents acquired his property which was under litigation when Atty. Mariano and Atty. Evangeline were representing him.

Considering the foregoing, the prohibition contained in Article 1491 of the Civil Code does not apply in the present case. Time and again, this Court held that while We will not hesitate to mete out the proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, neither will this Court hesitate to extend its protective arm to them when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven. 35 Thus, Vivencio's failure to discharge the burden of proof by substantial evidence requires no other conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from wielding its power to disbar respondents. 36

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondents Atty. Mariano B. Carrasco, Atty. Evangeline T. Carrasco, Atty. Al An E. Geñoso, and Atty. Angeline Marie T. Carrasco-Geñoso is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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. 3-5.

2. Id. at 471-473.

3. Id. at 227-228.

4. Id. at 2-3.

5. Id. at 48.

6. Id. at 49.

7. Id. at 467.

8. Id. at 3-5.

9. Id. at 52-57.

10. Id. at 51.

11. Id. at 3.

12. Id. at pp. 63-100.

13. OCT Nos. P-73649, P-73650, P-73651, P-73652, P-73653, P-73654, P-73655, P-73656, P-73657, and P-73658.

14. Rollo, pp. 101-160.

15. Id. at 255-256.

16. Id. at 257-276.

17. Id. at 279-280.

18. Id. at 283-284.

19. Id. at 321-322.

20. Id. at 351-355.

21. Id. at 374-376.

22. Id. at 377-420.

23. Id. at 455-462.

24. Id. at 514-522.

25. Id. at 521. Penned by Commissioner Marissa V. Manalo.

26. Id. at 512-513.

27. Id. at 496-502.

28. Yagong v. City Prosecutor Magno, 820 Phil. 291, 294 (2017).

29. Re: Letter of Lucena Ofendoreyes Alleging Illicit Activities Atty. Cajayon, 810 Phil. 369, 374 (2017).

30. Id. citing Bruselas, Jr. v. Mallari, A.C. No. 9683, February 21, 2017.

31. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1491, par. (5).

32. Zalamea v. De Guzman, Jr., 798 Phil. 1, 7 (2016).

33. A.C. No. 10304, June 14, 2021, citing Ramos v. Ngaseo, 487 Phil. 40, 47-48 (2004).

34. Id.

35. Guanzon v. Dojillo, 838 Phil. 235 (2018).

36. Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020.