SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10364. September 7, 2020.]
JAMES HARPER, complainant,vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAÑEZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 September 2020which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10364 (James Harper v. Atty. Amado O. Ibañez) — Complainant James Harper (complainant) charges respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez (respondent) with having committed perjury in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Factual Antecedents:
In October 1996, respondent obtained a loan from Francisco Munoz (Francisco), Consuelo Estrada (Consuelo), and Maria 1 Consuelo Munoz (Maria), secured by a real estate mortgage over a property located in Manila and covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. 202978. Respondent turned over the owner's duplicate copy of the property's title to Francisco, the financier of the said loan.
Upon the demise of Francisco in 2004, complainant was appointed as administrator of his estate.
In a letter 2 dated April 5, 2006, respondent requested complainant to submit to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) the duplicate copy of the title upon payment of the loan. However, this request went unheeded.
A month later, or on May 8, 2006, respondent filed a Petition 3 for Issuance of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title No. 202978 (petition for reconstitution) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch IV of Manila. In support of his Petition, respondent executed an Affidavit of Loss 4 stating that the owner's duplicate title has been misplaced/lost due to Francisco's death. In the Affidavit, respondent stated the following:
3. That on December 10, 1998, the mortgage was foreclosed by the aforenamed mortgagees and became the subject of Civil Case No. 97-86454, entitled, "Spouses Amado O. Ibañez and Esther R. Ibañez versus Francisco E. Munoz, Consuelo Estrada and Maria Consuelo E. Munoz" filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40, with station at the City of Manila;
4. That to pay the obligation, the undersigned affiant and his wife applied for a real estate loan [with] the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) under its Bahay Ko Pabahay Program as early as June, 2002;
5. That as a consequence, the owner's duplicate certificate of title of the above-described parcel of land became the subject of a Judicial Compromise Agreement dated June 17, 2002 which shall be surrendered to the GSIS once the application for real estate loan of the mortgagors under the GSIS Bahay Ko Pabahay Program has been completely processed and terminated;
6. That as early as December, 2005, herein mortgagors demanded from the mortgagees the surrender of the owner's duplicate certificate of title of the above-described land which was delivered to them;
7. That, according to the mortgagees, the owner's duplicate title of the above-described land has been misplaced/lost due to the death in December, 2004 of Mr. Francisco E. Munoz, common law husband of Mortgagee Consuelo Estrada and father of Mortgagee Maria Consuelo E. Munoz, who has the custody of the aforesaid title since the date it was mortgaged to the aforenamed mortgagees on October 17, 1996;
8. That to comply with the provisions of the Judicial Compromise Agreement dated June 17, 2002, it is necessary that the aforesaid title which was misplaced/lost and could not be found despite diligent search of the same be reconstituted in order to comply with the requirements of the GSIS; and
9. That I am executing this affidavit for the purpose of reconstituting the above-quoted title which was misplaced/lost upon the death of Francisco E. Munoz, common law husband of Mortgagee Consuelo Estrada and father of Mortgagee Maria Consuelo E. Munoz.5 [Emphasis Ours.]
Complainant opposed the petition for reconstitution and averred that the owner's duplicate title was not lost or misplaced. He presented the said title before the trial court to prove that it was in his possession as administrator of the estate of Francisco. As a result, thereof, the RTC dismissed the petition for reconstitution in its Order dated January 17, 2007.
Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint for Perjury against respondent before the Prosecutor's Office of Manila. He likewise instituted the instant complaint-affidavit against respondent for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.
Respondent, on the other hand, asserted that he surrendered to Francisco, Consuelo and Maria, as mortgagees, the duplicate title of the mortgaged property. Respondent conceded that complainant informed him that the duplicate title of the mortgaged property was in his possession. However, he did not believe him since he did not show him the title. Hence, believing that the title has been missing or misplaced, respondent executed an Affidavit of Loss and subsequently filed the petition for reconstitution of the owner's copy of the property's title.
Report and Recommendation of the
In her Report and Recommendation, 6 Investigating Commissioner Atty. Maria Editha A. Go-Binas found respondent administratively liable for violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
In a Resolution 7 dated June 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings and approve the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering that Respondent misled the Court and the Commission, Atty. Amado O. Ibañez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years. 8
The Court's Ruling
"In administrative proceedings, such as disbarment, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 9
Furthermore, administrative cases against lawyers are sui generis. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. The Court expounded on its distinct characteristics in the case of Gonzalez v. Atty. Alcaraz, 10 to wit:
x x x [D]isciplinary proceedings [against lawyers] are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, x x x [they do] not involve x x x a trial of an action or a suit, but [are] rather investigation[s] by the Court into the conduct of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. x x x. 11 (Citation omitted)
At the threshold of the controversy is whether respondent committed Perjury in the execution of the Affidavit of Loss which was presented as evidence in the petition for reconstitution that he filed before the RTC.
The following requisites must be present to hold one liable for Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code: (a) the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths; (c) in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. As to the third requisite, good faith or lack of malice is a defense.
In the case at bench, there is substantial evidence that respondent committed acts constituting Perjury. Records evince his knowledge that the duplicate copy of the title was not in fact missing. In a letter dated April 5, 2006 addressed to complainant, respondent wrote:
At this juncture, we would like to state that we are ready with the implementation of the aforesaid compromise agreement after the GSIS has approved our application as early as December, 2005, which information we have transmitted to you as early as that date. The amount of P2,000,000.00 has been ready as early as December, 2005, as long as you submit the owner's duplicate title to the GSIS. A delay in the submission of the aforesaid owner's duplicate has been noted by the undersigned. 12 [Emphasis Supplied.]
The letter is a clear indication that respondent knew that the duplicate title is in the possession of complainant as the administrator of the estate of Francisco. Still, he executed the subject Affidavit of Loss on May 8, 2006 claiming that the said title was missing, in support of his petition for reconstitution that was filed on even date before the RTC.
Respondent's claim that complainant did not show him the title when they met at his office does not suffice to form a belief that the title was indeed missing. There is dearth of overt acts that would indicate that respondent diligently inquired whether the title has been lost or misplaced. At the very least, he should have asked complainant to show it to him when they met at his office or during another occasion. Instead, he merely surmised that the title was missing albeit without any basis at all. On the other hand, complainant readily presented the title during the trial of the reconstitution petition which only shows that it was in his possession all along and not missing. As a result, the petition was dismissed by the trial court. Indubitably, other than his bare assertion that the duplicate title was lost, respondent failed to present an iota of substantial evidence to tilt the judgment in his favor.
In an attempt to maintain his stance, respondent further averred that Consuelo and Maria informed him that the title went missing after the demise of Francisco. In support of his claim, he presented a "Conformity of Mortgagees" 13 issued by Consuelo and Maria which stated that the title of the mortgaged property "was lost or misplaced during the confusion arising out of the demise of the late Francisco Munoz, Sr., on April 13, 2005". 14 Interestingly, the said Conformity was executed only on June 30, 2006 or almost two months after respondent executed the Affidavit of Loss. This gives the impression that the submission of the Certification was a mere afterthought considering that he already previously acknowledged that the duplicate title was with the complainant.
Anent the issue that it was Consuelo and Maria who were the actual mortgagees and not Francisco, the Court finds it irrelevant to the issue at hand. In any event, we find the claim speculative. The Investigating Commissioner likewise observed that respondent admitted that Francisco, Consuelo, and Maria were all engaged in a lending business. Further, it baffles this Court why the duplicate title of the mortgaged property was in the possession of Francisco if he had not really financed the loan obtained by respondent or was not one of the mortgagees. Moreover, respondent would not have communicated with the complainant as the administrator of Francisco's estate about the submission of the title to the GSIS if he did not acknowledge in any manner that Francisco was the mortgagee.
Clearly, respondent made a false statement in the Affidavit of Loss. He not only violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR, but also Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, and more importantly, the Lawyer's Oath.
The Lawyer's Oath states: 15
LAWYER'S OATH
I, _____________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
In Merculo v. Atty. Ramon, 16 We emphasized the importance of the Lawyer's Oath in the following manner:
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer. Any violation of the oath may be punished with either disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law, or other commensurate disciplinary action. Every lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his admission to the Bar, but are also essential for his continued membership in the Law Profession. Any conduct unbecoming of a lawyer constitutes a violation of his oath. 17 [Citations Omitted.]
A Lawyer's Oath is not a mere ceremony or formality that only needs to be memorized as one of the requirements in the admission to the Bar. 18 It is a solemn agreement which reminds the members of the Bar to uphold the rule of law and to champion justice at all times. 19 It is a pledge that must be ingrained in the heart of every lawyer reflecting his actions not only in the practice of his legal profession but also in his personal life.
Canons 1 and 10, and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the CPR reverberate the Oath which must be ingrained in the heart and mind of every lawyer, to wit:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondent failed to remain faithful to his duty as a lawyer to do no falsehood. Fabricating a statement in his affidavit that the duplicate title was missing and offering it in support of his petition for reconstitution violated not only the Lawyer's Oath but also the CPR. Further, it demonstrated his intention to use his knowledge of the law to his own advantage. To advance his own interest, he disregarded his duty as an officer of the court to assist in the administration of justice. 20 We surmise that respondent resorted to the filing of the reconstitution case maybe out of exasperation due to complainant's continued refusal to turn-over the title. He strategically resorted to the filing of the reconstitution petition in order to draw out the title from the complainant. It is undisputed that as early as December 2005, respondent already demanded from the complainant the said title in order to facilitate the release of his loan from the GSIS but to no avail. Respondent again wrote complainant a letter dated April 5, 2006 requesting complainant to turn over the TCT so he could comply with the requirements of the GSIS. The letter, however, went unheeded. However, during the trial of the reconstitution case, complainant eventually brought out the property's title.
Instead of being an instrument to advance its cause, complainant's act diminished the confidence of the public in the legal system. He miserably failed to maintain honesty, integrity and probity that are required of him as a lawyer.
Thus, respondent's misconduct merits administrative sanction. He failed to live up to the moral standards expected of him as a member of the legal profession when he made the false statements in his Affidavit of Loss. 21
On a final note, the Court reminds lawyers to act with the highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility not only in their professional dealings but also in their private capacity. 22 As aptly held in Cordon v. Balicanta: 23
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because "vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client's property, reputation, his life, his all". [Citations Omitted.]
In Spouses Umaguing v. Atty. De Vera, 24 the respondent-lawyer therein was found to have sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavit before the court and was imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. In the same manner, we find that respondent's infraction likewise merits the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months, instead of two (2) years as recommended by the IBP.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canons 1 and 10, and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution with a STERN WARNING that commission of the same or similar offense will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel. 25
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to all the courts of the land through the Office of the Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the personal files of respondent Atty. Amado O. Ibañez.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J., on official leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as Ma. in some parts of the records.
2.Rollo, p. 9.
3.Id. at 11-14.
4.Id. at 10.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 460-465.
7.Id. at 459.
8.Id.
9.Atty. Aguirre v. Atty. Reyes, A.C. No. 4355, January 8, 2020.
10. 534 Phil. 471 (2006)
11.Id. at 482.
12.Rollo, p. 9.
13.Id. at 65.
14.Id.
15. Rules of Court, Form 28.
16. 790 Phil. 267 (2016).
17.Id. at 272-273.
18.Ting-Dumali v. Torres, 471 Phil. 1, 8 (2004).
19.Id. at 9.
20.Id.
21.Chu v. Guico, Jr., 750 Phil. 246, 256 (2015).
22.Manzano v. Soriano, 602 Phil. 419, 427 (2009).
23. 439 Phil. 95 (2002).
24. 753 Phil. 11 (2015).
25. See Heirs of Unite v. Guzman, A.C. No. 12061, October 16, 2019.