THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11875. October 3, 2018.]
DOMINGO LAENO, complainant, vs. ATTY. FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11875 — Domingo Laeno, complainant v. Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin, respondent. — This is a Verified Complaint 1 against Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin (Atty. Agustin) for accepting a donation that is the subject matter of a pending litigation.
The complainant, Domingo Laeno (Laeno), was the counsel of E.M. Laeno & Associates, Inc. (E.M. Laeno) in the case E.M. Laeno & Associates, Inc. v. Perpetua Agustin, as beneficial owner, and Marcelina S. Agustin, as trustee2 before Branch 194, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City, docketed as Civil Case No. CV-03-001. 3
The subject matter of the case was an agreement to sell a property of E.M. Laeno to Perpetua Agustin (Perpetua) and Marcelina Agustin (Marcelina) amounting to P6,500,000.00. Perpetua issued a check amounting to P1,500,000.00 as payment of the unpaid balance. However, the check was dishonored. E.M. Laeno was compelled to file a complaint to recover the unpaid balance before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City. 4 A Notice of Lis Pendens5 was attached in the title of the lot on January 2, 2003.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of E.M. Laeno, ordering Perpetua to pay the remaining amount, interest, damages and other expenses. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 6 CAIHTE
Laeno then filed a Motion for Execution 7 before the Regional Trial Court after the Court of Appeals July 13, 2012 Decision became final and executory.
Later, Laeno discovered that the property had been transferred to Atty. Agustin based on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 010-2014001386. 8 He further learned that it was conveyed by Marcelina to Atty. Agustin through a Donation Inter Vivos. 9
Laeno sent a letter 10 to Atty. Agustin asking him to explain his act within 10 days from receipt of the letter, otherwise he would file a complaint against him. However, he did not receive any explanation from Atty. Agustin. 11
In his Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment, 12 Laeno alleged that the transfer of the property in favor of Atty. Agustin violated Article 1409 of the Civil Code; 13 and Canon 16, 14 and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 15
Atty. Agustin filed his Answer 16 where he alleged that after E.M. Laeno sold the property to his mother, Marcelina, Laeno rented it but was evicted in an ejectment case against him for failure to pay the rent. Atty. Agustin represented his mother in that ejectment case. 17
According to Atty. Agustin, the case pending in the Regional Trial Court docketed as Civil Case No. CV-03-001 was a malicious and baseless complaint to cause the annotation of notice of lis pendens in Marcelina's land title. 18 He argued that E.M. Laeno did not have any enforceable right over the property since they sold it to Marcelina in 2002. 19 Moreover, the action was based on a money claim and not on a real right to recover ownership; hence, the lot was not the subject matter of the litigation, and his mother could freely dispose of her property. 20 He added that E.M. Laeno or Laeno did not have the right or personality to assail the validity of the donation because they were not parties to the deed of donation. 21
Atty. Agustin claimed that Laeno was determined to get back the property that he filed another baseless case before Branch 258, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City. In this case, he caused the attachment of the same property even if Marcelina was not impleaded as defendant in the case. 22
Due to the baseless suits filed by Laeno, Atty. Agustin filed an administrative complaint against him, where the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the recommendation that he should be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. 23 DETACa
Atty. Agustin argues that Laeno is only using the court to peddle falsehood and brazen lies through this complaint to get back at him. He prays that the present complaint against him be dismissed outright and that Laeno be disbarred instead. 24
A Mandatory Conference was held on November 10, 2015 but only Atty. Agustin was present. The Notice for Mandatory Conference that was sent to Laeno was returned with the note, "moved left no address." 25
After the hearing, the parties were required to submit their respective verified position paper 26 but only Atty. Agustin complied. 27
On February 22, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala (Commissioner Villanueva-Maala) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. She agreed with Atty. Agustin that the action was not a real action to recover ownership but purely a personal action to recover a sum of money; hence, the lot was not the subject matter of the litigation and Marcelina could freely dispose of it. Laeno also did not have any right or personality to question the donation because he was not a party to the Deed of Donation. 28
In Resolution No. XXII-2016-582, 29 dated November 5, 2016, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines resolved to adopt the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala.
The issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin violated Canon 16; 30 and Canon 1, 31 Rule 1.01 32 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for accepting the donation of the lot from his mother.
The Complaint for Disbarment is denied for lack of merit.
In Advincula v. Macabata, 33 this Court held that mere accusations without sufficient proof will not merit the disbarment of a lawyer:
As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations — ei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit. . . . A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. 34 (Citations omitted)
In this case, Laeno failed to support his accusation that Atty. Agustin violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by accepting the donation of land from his mother. He merely stated that there was a pending case over a lot between his client and Marcelina, where Atty. Agustin was Marcelina's counsel 35 and that the title had a notice of lis pendens attached to it. 36 He failed to cite any law or jurisprudence showing that Marcelina was prohibited from donating her land to her own son because he was acting as her lawyer. He could have clarified this during the pre-trial or through his position paper but he failed to do so as he was absent on the scheduled date. He also failed to submit his position paper. aDSIHc
Even if the title has an attached notice of lis pendens, it does not signify a prohibition to donate the land. In Magdalena Homeowners Association v. Court of Appeals, 37 this Court discussed the concept of lis pendens:
The notice of lis pendens — i.e., that real property is involved in an action — is ordinarily recorded without the intervention of the court where the action is pending. The notice is but an incident in an action, an extrajudicial one, to be sure. It does not affect the merits thereof. It is intended merely to constructively advise, or warn, all people who deal with the property that they so deal with it at their own risk, and whatever rights they may acquire in the property in any voluntary transaction are subject to the results of the action, and may well be inferior and subordinate to those which may be finally determined and laid down therein. The cancellation of such a precautionary notice is therefore also a mere incident in the action, and may be ordered by the Court having jurisdiction of it at any given time. And its continuance or removal — like the continuance or removal of a preliminary attachment or injunction — is not contingent on the existence of a final judgment in the action, and ordinarily has no effect on the merits thereof. 38 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The notice of lis pendens attached to the title of the property does not prevent its owner from disposing it, but merely serves as a warning to third persons regarding a pending litigation over it and that the decision of the court may affect their right over it.
In this case, the notice of lis pendens attached to the title of Marcelina did not prevent her from donating her property to her son. It only served as a warning to Atty. Agustin that his right to possess the lot would be affected by the outcome of the case. The right of E.M. Laeno to have the court's judgment satisfied is still protected despite the donation of the property.
After considering the complaint, this Court finds that Atty. Agustin did not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint against Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." Gesmundo, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-23.
2.Id. at 103-108.
3.Id. at 20.
4.Id. at 43-44.
5.Id. at 25.
6.Id. at 51.
7.Id. at 35-38.
8.Id. at 29-31.
9.Id. at 32-33.
10.Id. at 34.
11.Id. at 22.
12.Id. at 2-6.
13.Id. at 21. CIVIL CODE, art. 1409 provides:
Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived.
14. Laeno misquoted Canon 16 as, "A lawyer shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, any interest in the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting." However, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: "CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession."
15.Rollo, p. 21.
16.Id. at 56-82.
17.Id. at 57.
18.Id. at 57.
19.Id. at 65-66.
20.Id. at 66-67.
21.Id. at 71-73.
22.Id. at 57.
23.Id. at 127-133. There is no record showing that this IBP case has been forwarded to and decided by this Court.
24.Id. at 124-125.
25.Id. at 156. See rollo, p. 156-A.
26.Id. at 156.
27.Id. at 157-174.
28.Id. at 200-201.
29.Id. at 196-197.
30. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 16 provides:
Canon 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
31. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 1 provides:
Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
32. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 1.01 provides:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
33. 546 Phil. 431 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
34. Id. at 446.
35. Rollo, p. 21.
36. Id. at 31.
37. 263 Phil. 235 (1990) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
38. Id. at 241.