FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13419. August 31, 2022.][formerly CBD Case No. 20-6221]
TOMAS MANUBAY, JR., petitioner, vs.ATTY. ALFREDO S. DIRIGE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 31, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13419 [formerly CBD Case No. 20-6221] (Tomas Manubay, Jr. v. Atty. Alfredo S. Dirige). — Before the Court is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Alfredo S. Dirige (respondent) on the ground of willful violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and of Section 415 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7160, 2 or the Local Government Code.
Antecedents
In 1981, Tomas Manubay, Jr. (complainant) and Romeo Parchamento (Parchamento) executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage over a parcel of land in Santiago City, Isabela. Complainant, as the vendee, undertook to assume Parchamento's debt and mortgage of the land with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). A few years after, Parchamento died. His heirs, namely, Ma. Theresa Parchamento Velasco, Rommel Parchamento, and Robert Parchamento (Heirs of Parchamento), sought to recover the property from complainant on the ground that he failed to fulfill his obligation under the agreement with their father. 3
On 04 December 2019, the Heirs of Parchamento filed a Complaint 4 before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Salvador, Santiago City, Isabela to recover possession of the property from complainant. In the complaint, signed by respondent as counsel, the Heirs of Parchamento alleged that they came to know of complainant's omission when they received a notice from the bank that the property was being foreclosed. They immediately settled the mortgage indebtedness in the amount of P1 Million. Thereafter, they negotiated with complainant to vacate the property and surrender its possession to them, but the latter did not meet with them. Hence, their resort to barangay conciliation. 5 CAIHTE
Proceedings Before the IBP
In the Complaint-Affidavit 6 filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), complainant alleged that respondent signed the Heirs of Parchamento's complaint and stood as the latter's counsel before the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Lupon). The Lupon members reminded respondent during the proceedings that lawyers are not allowed to be there, but he insisted on participating.
Thus, complainant argued that respondent violated Section 415 of RA 7160, which states that parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel, subject to specific exceptions. Likewise, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR. He also accused respondent of instigating the filing of cases against him, his son, and son-in-law to leverage the Heirs of Parchamento's demand for the return of their father's property.
In an Order 7 dated 08 August 2020, the IBP-CBD directed respondent to file his answer to the complaint.
In his Answer, 8 respondent maintained that he has no pending administrative or criminal cases. He claimed that the Heirs of Parchamento are his relatives, their late father being his cousin. They also live in the same neighborhood. When they came to him with the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, he realized that he had notarized the same document when he was a young lawyer. He was also saddened to hear that complainant failed to fulfill his obligation. He assisted them in negotiating with DBP to pay the loan and prevent the foreclosure of the property. He also helped them secure a settlement with complainant, but failed.
Respondent denied that he employed "artifice" to convince his relatives to engage his legal services. 9 In fact, they never asked for his help. However, respondent believed that as a relative, it was his obligation to assist them. Moreover, he argued that the Heirs of Parchamento are considered "incompetent" or "lacking qualification or ability[;] being unable to legally to perform specific acts or to be held legally responsible for such acts[;] [and] lacking power to act with legal effectiveness." 10 Respondent further pointed out that complainant himself never appeared during the conciliation proceedings. Complainant's representatives never objected to respondent's participation in the proceedings. When the conciliation failed, the Heirs of Parchamento engaged the services of another lawyer to file the civil case for recovery of possession and recission of Deed of Sale before the Regional Trial Court. 11
In addition, respondent claimed that the present complaint is in retaliation for the case for threats, trespassing, and malicious mischief filed by the Heirs of Parchamento against complainant. 12
In the Report and Recommendation 13 dated 15 April 2021, IBP-CBD Commissioner Cesare Napolione S. Sta. Romana (Commissioner Sta. Romana) found respondent liable for willful violation of Section 415 of RA 7160, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 1 of the CPR. 14 He recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.
Commissioner Sta. Romana found that respondent disregarded the express prohibition in Section 415 of RA 7160, which states:
SECTION 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. — In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
Respondent's insistence that his relatives are "incompetents" is not supported by any proof. Moreover, Section 415 expressly states that incompetents are to be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers. 15
As a lawyer and a former local public official, respondent is aware of the legal prohibition under RA 7160. That there was no objection to his appearance in the conciliation proceedings is of no moment because, knowing the prohibition, he should have refused to participate at the outset. 16
Complainant also raised the issue of conflict of interest, given that respondent appeared as counsel for the Heirs of Parchamento during barangay conciliation despite being the lawyer who notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Commissioner Sta. Romana noted that this was not raised in the position papers. Moreover, there is no evidence that complainant was respondent's client when the latter notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Similarly, there is no evidence that respondent instigated his relatives to engage his legal services. 17
In its Resolution dated 29 January 2022, the IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Sta. Romana. 18 DETACa
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts the IBP's findings of facts, but imposes a different penalty against respondent.
Section 415 of RA 7160 is crystal clear in its directive that parties before the lupon should appear without counsel. Respondent, as a lawyer and former local government official, is well aware of this edict. In Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba, 19 We explained:
The above-quoted provision clearly requires the personal appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangay conciliation proceedings, unassisted by counsel or representative. The rationale behind the personal appearance requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the facts and issues, the exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. There can be no quibbling that [laypersons] of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case. 20
Respondent does not even deny knowledge of this provision. Instead, he attempts to justify his action by claiming that his relatives were "incompetents" needing his representation. His argument is misplaced.
The term "incompetents" as used in RA 7160 must be taken not in its ordinary sense but its legal meaning. Rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on Guardianship defines who are considered as incompetent:
Section 2. Meaning of word "incompetent." — Under this rule, the word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
The Court has previously explained that under this provision, "persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid, are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship." 21
Moreover, mere allegation of being "incompetent" is not enough. A finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive, and definite evidence. 22
In this case, respondent proffered no evidence that any or all of the Heirs of Parchamento have been declared as incompetents. There is no showing that any of them have any of the impairments — age, disease, weak mind, or other similar causes — that makes them unable to take care of themselves. Nonetheless, even if it any or all of them were proven to be an "incompetent," Section 415 of RA 7160 explicitly provides that they shall be represented by the next of kin who is not a lawyer. In any scenario, respondent would have no legal basis for his appearance at the barangay conciliation proceedings.
Canon 1 of the CPR states:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
It mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. A lawyer, to the best of his or her ability, is expected to respect and abide by the law, and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his or her character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law. 23 aDSIHc
The Court understands that it is human nature to want to protect our family. However, lawyers must also be reminded of the limits and restrictions placed upon them by the laws and rules. Based on his narration of facts, respondent had already extended assistance in some other capacity to his relatives. Accordingly, he should have refused to appear at the conciliation proceedings, or upon appearance, should have heeded the directive of the Lupon members to desist from participating in the proceedings. Respondent's refusal and his continued denial of any wrongdoing can only be regarded as willful, deliberate, and with conscious disregard for the canons of the profession. Accordingly, respondent must be held liable.
However, We do not agree with the penalty recommended by the IBP-CBD and adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. In previous cases, the Court has meted out a fine 24 or reprimand 25 for similar violations. Considering that this is respondent's first offense, a reprimand will suffice.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Court finds respondent Atty. Alfredo S. Dirige GUILTY of willful violation of Section 415 of Republic Act No. 7160, or the Local Government Code, and of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in Atty. Alfredo S. Dirige's record with the Office of the Bar Confidant, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 5-13.
2. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991." Approved: 10 October 1991.
3. Rollo, see p. 2 of the Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
4. Id. at 16-17.
5. Id.See p. 2 of the Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
6. Id. at 5-13.
7. Id. at 46.
8. Id. at 47-55.
9. Id. at 51.
10. Id. at 52.
11. Id. at 53.
12. Id. at 54.
13. Id.See Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
14. Id.See p. 6 of the Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
15. Id.See p. 5 of the Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
16. Id.
17. Id.See p. 6 of the Report and Recommendation, unpaginated.
18. Id.See Notice of Resolution. Signed by National Secretary Doroteo Lorenzo B. Aguila.
19. Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba, 512 Phil. 231 (2005).
20. Id. at 235.
21. Hernandez v. San Juan-Santos, 612 Phil. 780, 790-791 (2009).
22. Oropesa v. Oropesa, 686 Phil. 877, 884 (2012); citations omitted.
23. Malecdan v. Baldo, 834 Phil. 193, 200 (2018).
24. Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba, supra note 15 at 236-237.
25. Malecdan v. Baldo, supra.