SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12737. December 6, 2021.]
IN RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LAW FIRM OF ROQUE AND BUTUYAN; MICHAEL JAMES BLENDELL, petitioners, vs. THE LAW FIRM OF ROQUE AND BUTUYAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12737 (In re: Complaint against The Law Firm of Roque and Butuyan; Michael James Blendell v. The Law Firm of Roque and Butuyan). — This resolves the complaint 1 dated May 29, 2017 filed by Michael James Blendell (Blendell) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against The Law Firm of Roque & Butuyan (law firm) for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, dilatory practices, intimidation, and gross negligence or fraud.
The Facts:
Blendell is an English national and the attorney-in-fact of Graham Richard Oldreive (Oldreive), a client of the law firm. Blendell alleged that in 2002, Oldreive purchased a condominium unit and parking space at Bayview Towers III, Roxas Boulevard, Parañaque City. 2
In 2004, Oldreive instituted an ejectment proceeding against the occupant of the unit. The trial court ruled in favor of Oldreive but the occupant appealed the adverse ruling of the trial court and even filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Harry Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque), one of the name partners of the law firm. However, the occupant remained in possession of the unit, as supposedly, Atty. Roque expressed his worries to Oldreive regarding the disbarment complaint filed against him (Atty. Roque). Allegedly, Oldreive agreed not to enforce the ejectment against the occupant of the unit if the disbarment proceeding against Atty. Roque would be dropped. 3
Blendell contends that the law firm refused to promptly transfer the shares of the condominium unit and parking space being held by its lawyers in favor of Oldreive's chosen nominee. 4 Apparently, a corporation named Felmailem, Inc. was organized with the following stockholders for the unit and parking space:
|
Felma Mailem |
246 shares |
|
H. Harry Roque, Jr. |
1 share |
|
Joel Butuyan |
1 share |
|
Joan Serrano |
1 share |
|
Gary Mallari |
1 share |
|
Total |
250 shares5 |
Yet, in an unsigned one-page document titled "deed of assignment," 6 it appeared that Felma Mailem has assigned all the 246 shares to Oldreive. Nonetheless, Felmailem, Inc. is the registered owner of the unit and parking space as evidenced by Condominium Certificates of Title Nos. 20862 and 20861, 7 which were issued on December 12, 2008. However, based on an unsigned Secretary's Certificate, 8 Felmailem, Inc. became a defunct corporation and the board of directors have been informed that Blendell wanted to incorporate a new company. 9 The new company would still carry the name, "Felmailem, Inc.," with Blendell and four others as shareholders, none of whom is known to the existing shareholders of the defunct corporation. 10
Report and Recommendation of the
In a report and recommendation 11 dated July 19, 2017, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 12 The Investigating Commissioner noted that the complaint failed to specify the acts the law firm supposedly committed in violation of the Rules of Court, the Lawyer's Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 13
After further evaluation, the Investigating Commissioner found that the complaint actually seeks to compel the lawyers of the law firm to transfer the shares individually registered in their names to the nominee of Oldreive, which remedy is not within the jurisdiction of the IBP. 14 The Investigating Commissioner also opined that since foreigners could own condominium units, Blendell's allegation that the law firm was instrumental in illegally hiding ownership by a foreigner of a unit is quite strange. 15
The Investigating Commissioner emphasized that Blendell's claim that the associates of the law firm refused to transfer their shares to Oldreive's nominee is not within the jurisdiction of the IBP-CBD. 16 There was no allegation or proof that the lawyers executed a trust agreement in favor of the alleged transferee or rightful owners of the shares. 17 Furthermore, there was no proof that the lawyers have no financial capacity to purchase one share valued at P100.00. Thus, there is no factual or legal basis to compel the lawyers to assign their individual shares to Blendell, Oldreive, or his nominee. Besides, the assertion that the lawyers are mere nominees is based on Blendell's self-serving allegation without any documentary evidence. 18
The Investigating Commissioner added that Blendell must file in the proper forum, court or administrative body (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission), the appropriate suit against the law firm or its lawyers. This is with respect to the alleged liability of the lawyers under the CPR for supposed failure to submit progress reports on the purported transfer of shares, which would entirely depend on Oldreive's acquisition of absolute ownership over the shares of Felmailem, Inc. However, it appears that the lawyers are still independently and separately registered as the owners of some of the shares. Absent any final judgment or at least a trust agreement, the Investigating Commissioner cannot be expected to speculate what right or privilege Blendell or Oldreive has. Without establishing any right either by final judgment or valid document, the Investigating Commissioner has no authority to adjudicate or dictate the rights and obligations of the lawyers being referred to in the instant case. 19
The Investigating Commissioner also stated that with regard to Blendell's allegation that the law firm was demanding 20% of the market value of the condominium unit, the Investigating Commissioner is without jurisdiction to determine its propriety or reasonableness. The Investigating Commissioner stressed that the delegated authority of the IBP is limited to the conduct of administrative proceedings for violations of the Rules of Court, the Lawyer's Oath, and the CPR. 20
In a Resolution 21 dated March 22, 2018, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the complaint.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the complaint against the law firm.
An examination of the records reveals that Blendell did not identify in his complaint the specific provisions of the Rules of Court, Lawyer's Oath or the CPR the law firm allegedly violated. Nonetheless, the allegations in the complaint ultimately point to the issue regarding the transfer of shares of the condominium unit.
The copies of the e-mail exchanges 22 between Blendell and the lawyers of the law firm, in a nutshell, demonstrated Blendell's frustration and dissatisfaction about how the lawyers of the law firm have been handling the supposed transfer of shares of the condominium unit and parking space. Since Blendell's goal is to have the shares of the lawyers of the law firm transferred to Oldreive's chosen nominee, the concerned parties should settle the matter in the proper forum. An administrative complaint is not the proper avenue to address this concern. As found by the Investigating Commissioner, such matter is within the purview of the appropriate government agency or the trial courts as it involves civil and commercial law issues.
Accordingly, the Court will refrain from dictating how lawyers should handle their businesses in their respective law firms, as it is within their discretion or capacity to deal with such matters independently. A law firm is not like a trial court that is mandated to dispose of its businesses promptly, and which is subject to the Court's power to monitor and audit. Although the Court has the authority to discipline members of the Bar, the exercise of such authority should have factual and legal bases. In other words, administrative proceedings should not be resorted to when the complained acts can be resolved in another forum, agency or office, or when other judicial recourse is available. 23
Stated differently, "[f]or the Court to exercise its disciplinary power, the burden of proof in a disbarment proceeding rests upon the complainant who must establish with substantial evidence that the lawyer committed acts or omissions which reflect his or her unfitness to be a member of the Bar. Substantial evidence is defined as 'that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.'" 24 Unfortunately, Blendell failed in this regard. He did not submit adequate evidence to show why the law firm and its associates should be held administratively liable.
In this case, Blendell did not prove with substantial evidence 25 that the law firm or its lawyers committed acts that are contrary to law, the Lawyer's Oath, or the CPR and which would warrant disciplinary action against them. Moreover, based on Blendell's allegations alone, the lawyers did not commit any of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 26 of the Rules of Court. Besides, Blendell charged the entire law firm without specifying the lawyer or lawyers he is actually filing a complaint against.
To stress, "[t]he Court consistently reminds that administrative proceedings brought against lawyers for acts in the exercise of their profession are not alternatives to reliefs that may be sought and obtained from the proper offices. 27 The Court's exercise of its disciplinary power over members of the Bar is not only aimed at preserving the integrity and reputation of the law profession, but also at shielding lawyers, in general, they being officers themselves of the Court." 28
Even so, "[t]he discretion to assess the imposable sanction is addressed to this Court, where We are controlled by the imperative need that the purity and independence of the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and respect due to the Court be zealously maintained." 29 The Court commiserates with Blendell and Oldreive, as they have expressed discontentment with how the lawyers of the law firm handled their affairs. However, it was their choice to engage the services of the law firm. Any issues they may have should be resolved in the appropriate forum, especially absent clear proof that the lawyers committed acts against the Rules of Court, the Lawyer's Oath, or the CPR.
Although the Court, based on the allegations herein, cannot impose a graver administrative sanction upon the lawyers of the law firm without the corresponding grounds and legal bases to do so, We may issue a reminder for lawyers to be mindful of Canon 18 of the CPR, which states that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Thus, once a client engages the services of a lawyer, the latter should take steps to expeditiously deliver the services being availed of, but always within the bounds of law and propriety.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against the Law Firm of Roque & Butuyan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2.Id. at 63.
3.Id. at 2 and 63.
4.Id. at 64.
5.Id. at 5 and 64.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id. at 22-23.
8.Id. at 55.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 64.
11.Id. at 63-67. Penned by Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera.
12.Id. at 67.
13.Id. at 64-65.
14.Id. at 65.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 65-66.
18.Id. at 66.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 67.
21.Id. at 62.
22.Id. at 11-21, 24-49 and 53-59.
23. See Balana v. Monteza-Cadavedo, A.C. No. 12321 (Notice), July 17, 2019, citing Sps. Chua v. SACP Tan-Sollano, 810 Phil. 365, 368 (2017).
24.Buenaventura v. Gille, A.C. No. 7446, December 9, 2020, citing Domingo v. Sacdalan, A.C. No. 12475, March 26, 2019.
25. 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 6: "That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"; See Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020.
26. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
27.Ramos v. Abelita III, A.C. No. 10420 (Notice), December 7, 2020, citing Domingo v. Atty. Palmarine, 797 Phil. 581, 590 (2016).
28.Id.
29.Lahbati v. Bautista, A.C. No. 12889 (Notice), December 7, 2020, citing In re: Almacen v. Yaptinchay, 142 Phil. 353-393 (1970).