THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11945. September 30, 2020.][Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4312]
TEODULO A. HUGO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. MARVEN B. PAŇARES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 30, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11945 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4312] (Teodulo A. Hugo, Petitioner, vs. Atty. Marven B. Pañares, Respondent). — The Court resolves to NOTE the letter dated June 28, 2019 of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano, Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), informing the Court that in reference to the case, the IBP has already conducted and completed its investigation, report and recommendation dated March 10, 2015, recommending the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment against respondent which the IBP Board of Governors affirmed, and transmitting to this Court the documents pertaining to this case.
For consideration is the Petition for Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Teodulo A. Hugo before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), assailing the recommendation by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to dismiss his disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Marven B. Pañares (respondent).
Petitioner alleges that he is the true and lawfully registered owner of a parcel of land located in Banawa, Cebu City, covered by TCT No. 122355. In October 2013, he went to check on the condition of the land. However, petitioner was shocked to know from the caretaker thereof that the lot had already been sold to April Grace Estolloso (April Grace), the sister of his wife, and her spouse, Angelito Estolloso (collectively, spouses Estolloso). 2
Upon investigation, petitioner discovered that a Deed of Sale 3 has been executed on 15 February 2013, allegedly by him and his wife, in favor of spouses Estolloso. The said Deed was allegedly notarized by respondent lawyer, and entered in the latter's Notarial Register with Doc. No. 230, Page 46, Book No. 10, Series of 2013. Petitioner, however, claims that he never personally appeared before respondent on the date indicated in the said Deed and disputes the signatures appearing thereon purporting to be his and that of his wife. Moreover, petitioner notes that the Community Tax Certificate used to verify his identity does not belong to him. 4
Petitioner likewise allegedly inquired with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu, and found that no copy of the said Deed was attached to the Notarial Report submitted by respondent. Eventually, he filed a complaint before the IBP for disbarment of respondent, insisting that the latter violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
For his part, respondent insists that he verified the identities of the parties, including complainant who even presented his Driver's License as competent evidence of his identity. According to respondent, complainant and his wife personally appeared before him. He advised them to affix their respective signatures on the first page of the Deed of Sale when he noticed that the signature page had already been pre-signed. This step was undertaken to ensure that complainant and his wife indeed personally signed the same. Moreover, respondent alleges that while complainant claims that his signature and that of his wife on the signature page were forged, the latter remained silent as to the authenticity of their signatures as appearing on the first page. 5
In her Report and Recommendation 6 dated 10 March 2015, Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala suggested the dismissal of petitioner's complaint for disbarment. She observed that complainant denies only the authenticity of their signatures on the signature page but not the signatures on the first page. Further, the Driver's License presented to respondent as competent evidence of identity actually belonged to complainant. The Investigating Commissioner also noted that community tax certificates, such as the one being contested by complainant as his own, can easily be procured multiple times in a year.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 7 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration thereon but the same was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its 19 April 2017 Resolution. 8
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant Petition, praying for respondent's disbarment.
Ruling of the Court
We deny the petition.
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant. 9 And as a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he or she is innocent of the charges made against him or her until the contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his or her duties in accordance with his oath. 10
This Court has definitively ruled that the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence is the quantum of evidence required in disbarment proceedings. 11 As case law elucidates, "[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution." 12
In this case, petitioner failed to discharge the required burden of proof. Aside from his self-serving allegation that he did not sign the subject Deed of Sale, he failed to present any other evidence to support his claim. As correctly noted by both the IBP Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors, despite petitioner's staunch denial that the signatures as appearing on the second page, or the signature page in the said Deed belong to him and his wife, he never disputed the authenticity of their signatures on the first page thereof. Moreover, respondent's claim that a driver's license purporting to belong to petitioner was presented to him as competent proof of identity remains unrebutted. Petitioner even admitted that the said license was, in fact, his.
In notarizing the subject Deed, respondent properly observed the required procedure under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He asked for competent evidence of the signatories' identities, which petitioner complied with by handing over his driver's license. Upon noticing that the second, or signature page, of the Deed had already been pre-signed, respondent required petitioner and his wife to likewise sign the first page thereof. This signified that petitioner and his wife ratified their pre-signed signatures, and that they indeed signed the same freely and personally without coercion or intimidation.
Likewise, the Court notes that petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that no copy of the subject Deed of Sale was attached to the Notarial Report submitted by respondent to the RTC of Cebu. While petitioner presented a copy of the page from respondent's Notarial Record, there was no certification from the OCC of the RTC of Cebu to verify petitioner's claim. In any event, the copy of the relevant page of the said Notarial Record only proved to show that the Deed of Sale was properly registered in compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The Court 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, but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to them when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven. 13 After all, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar, 14 none of which were proven in this case.
Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. 15 Thus, the absence of substantial evidence to show that respondent violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility necessarily warrants the denial of the instant petition.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Atty. Marven B. Pañares is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The Petition should have been denominated as "Petition for Review," rollo, pp. 150-156.
2.Rollo, p. 3.
3.Id. at 161-162.
4.Id. at 3-4.
5.Id. at 144.
6.Id. at 142-146.
7.Id. at 140-141.
8.Id. at 138-139.
9.Jaime Joven and Reynaldo Rasing v. Attys. Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin III, A.C. No. 7686, n 31 July 2013.
10.Lanuza v. Magsalin III, 749 Phil. 104-114 (2014); A.C. Nos. 7687 & 7688, 03 December 2014 citing Rafols, Jr. v. Atty. Barrios, Jr., A.C. No. 4973, March 15, 2010.
11.See Reyes v. Nieva, 794 Phil. 360-381 (2016); A.C. No. 8560, 06 September 2016.
12.Id.
13.Asturias v. Attys. Serrano and Samson, A.C. No. 6538, 25 November 2005.
14.Perito v. Baterina, A.C. No. 12631, 08 July 2020.
15.Cabas v. Sususco, A.C. No. 8677, 15 June 2016 (Resolution).
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "686" in the official document.