FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12166. October 15, 2018.]
EMILY B. JAMAROLIN, complainant,vs. ATTY. DAR A. DIGA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12166 [formerly CBD Case No. 16-4977] Emily B. Jamarolin vs. Atty. Dar A. Diga
This case stemmed from a Complaint 1 filed by Emily B. Jamarolin (complainant) against Atty. Dar A. Diga (respondent).
Bible Temple of God, Inc. (BTG), a close family religious corporation, through its administrators/incorporators Avelina Dailo and Cynthia Dailo-Enriquez (Dailo family), is an owner of parcel of land situated at Block 3, Lot 12, Phase II, Burol I, Dasmariñas City, Cavite covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-699013 (subject property), where a commercial building is located. 2
One of the tenants of the said building is herein complainant. Complainant was occupying Space No. 6 of the building for the purpose of engaging in the business of an eatery or small canteen. Complainant was paying a monthly rental of P7,000.00, on a month to month basis. 3
Due to the improper management of the waste materials coming from the canteen/eatery of complainant, the canals, ducts and waterways around the side of the building started to clog. Complainant refused to cooperate with BTG, as such, the latter, through its administrators, the Dailo family, sent a demand letter to complainant to vacate the premises. 4
Complainant claimed that respondent, in the preparation of the demand letter violated his lawyer's oath by making it appear that the Dailo family owned the subject property. Further, complainant claimed that respondent invented the amount of P7,000.00 as her monthly rent of the subject property despite the absence of a contract and receipt. 5
On the other hand, respondent claimed that he did not violate his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The allegations contained in the demand letter are wholly supplied by his clients. Respondent argued that he is always mindful of his oath and that he carefully exercised his functions as a retained lawyer of BTG and the Dailo family in gathering facts for the preparation and drafting of the complaint for unlawful detainer against the complainant. Further, the allegations of complainant in the instant administrative case are also the same allegations she raised in the unlawful detainer case. Since the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is not a trier of facts and issues involving the unlawful detainer case, said allegations should properly be resolved before the Municipal Trial Court. 6
On April 10, 2017, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued a Report and Recommendation 7 recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XXII-2017-1190 8 dated June 17, 2017, adopted the recommendation of the CBD.
After examining the instant complaint, we adopt the uniform findings of the CBD and IBP Board of Governors.
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and we are to determine as to whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed to practice law. 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 for the purpose of preserving the high regard of the public to the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by making sure that only members who are worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney can exercise the same. 9
In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant; and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint with preponderance of evidence. 10 "Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the presented contrary evidence." 11
In this case, we quote with conformity the findings of the CBD, thus:
The Commission appreciates the merit of respondent's claims that the fault ascribed to him in this administrative complaint was the same inadequacy raised by complainant in her answer in the unlawful detainer case. The Commission not being a trier of facts, the Municipal Trial Court handling the unlawful detainer case appears to be the proper forum to resolve the parties' right to possession. Hence, "x x x the Commission cannot decide whether the allegations in the original Unlawful Detainer case as well as the documentary attachments are misleading and false as only the Honorable Trial Court has the authority and discretion to decide the materiality, relevancy and admissibility of these proofs." 12
From the foregoing, it is clear that the case should be dismissed for utter lack of merit. Complainant failed to overcome her burden of proof to show that respondent was unworthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court RESOLVES to ADOPT the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Accordingly, the complaint against respondent Atty. Dar A. Diga is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official travel; Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member of the First Division per S.O. No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 2.
2.Id. at 89.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 17-18.
7.Id. at 134-137.
8.Id. at 133.
9.Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407 (2013).
10.Coquia v. Atty. Laforteza, 805 Phil. 400, 408 (2017).
11.Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, supra at 407-408.
12.Rollo, pp. 136-137.