THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11939. April 25, 2018.]
GERARD VICTOR H. MILAN, complainant,vs. ATTY. OSCAR L. GOZOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 25, 2018, which reads as follows: cTDaEH
"A.C. No. 11939 (Gerard Victor H. Milan, complainant v. Atty. Oscar L. Gozos, respondent) — Before the Court is a Complaint-Affidavit filed by complainant Gerard Victor H. Milan (complainant) against respondent Atty. Oscar "Oca" L. Gozos (respondent) for violation of Canon I 1 and Rule 1.01 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for allegedly influencing Judge Pablo R. Chavez (former judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas) to rule in favor of De Jesus Linatoc Castillo and Associates, a known ally of respondent. 3 Complainant also avers that it was respondent who directed Domingo Gozos, et al., to construct a fence on the disputed land while the case was pending so as to enclose complainant. 4
Investigating Commissioner Eduardo Q. Ang, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner Ang) summarized the claims of the parties as follows:
VERSION OF THE COMPLAINANT
The allegations state that [respondent] influenced Judge Pablo R. [Chavez] (Judge Chavez) to decide a case in favour of his ([respondent's]) law firm De Jesus Linatoc Castillo and Associates (the firm).
That[,] Judge Chavez issued an order dated September 3, 2007 in Civil Case No. R98-001, Victoriana Gozos vs. Sps. Gerardo and Lorna Milan. The dispositive portion of which read[:]
WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the hearing on the Motion for Alias Writ of Execution is hereby deemed held in abeyance pending receipt of the resolution from the Court of Appeals.
That, despite such order of the court, last May 3, 2008, the family of Domingo Gozos ordered the cutting of trees in order to continue their fencing of the land still subject of the case.
That, in a Certification issued by Barangay Chairman Rodel Pesigan, one Evelyn Gozos Mapoy, daughter of Domingo Gozos[,] told the responding policemen that it was [respondent] who gave them the instructions to fence the land as it is their own. That [respondent] has an agreement with Judge Chavez that they will win the case.
Thus, [respondent] should be held administratively liable for influencing Judge Chavez to favour Domingo Gozos.
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT
[Respondent] denied all the allegations on the complaint as he alleged the same to be conjectures and based on hearsay evidence.
The case allegedly being referred to by the complainant is Civil Case No. R98-001, Victoriana Gozos v. Spouses Gerardo and Lorna Milan for Rescission of Contract/Recovery of Possession with Damages. The case is handled by De Jesus Linatoc Castillo and Associates for Victoriana Gozos.
[Respondent] countered that he could not have influenced the decision of Judge Chavez as the latter even dismissed the case and ruled against his client, Victoriana Gozos.
Even on appeal, the CA gave them partial victory as it gave them a period of time to pay the balance.
As to [respondent's] association with De Jesus Linatoc Castillo & Associates, he countered that there is no such association as he has already divested interest in the partnership and was no longer connected with the firm even before the incident subject of the barangay certification which is March 3, 2008. He attached to his answer the Deed of Assignment and the subsequent changes in the Firm Name as evidenced by the SEC Certificates of Registration and Amended Articles of Partnership. CAIHTE
Further, respondent advanced that a total of 6 different criminal cases were filed against the lawyers of the firm and its clients. All of such cases were already dismissed. In addition, complainant also filed a disbarment case against another lawyer of the firm. The said case is still pending before the CBD. 5
Investigating Commissioner Ang recommended the dismissal of the charges against respondent, 6 and this recommendation was adopted by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (BG-IBP). 7
Complainant moved for reconsideration, but the BG-IBP denied said motion, there being no new reasons and/or arguments adduced to reverse the previous findings of the BG-IBP. 8
After a review of the records, the Court affirms the findings and recommendation of the BG-IBP.
In Robiñol v. Bassig, 9 the Court reiterated the age-old doctrine that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the proper evidentiary threshold is substantial evidence.
In the present case, complainant failed to show by substantial evidence that respondent is guilty of influencing a magistrate and of directing the circumvention of a court order.
The sole evidence of complainant is his statement, as reported in a police blotter, that he heard Evelyn Gozos Mapoy say that it was respondent who gave the instructions to fence the land subject of a pending case, and that respondent and Judge Chavez already had an agreement that they (Evelyn, et al.) would win the case. Such evidence, however, is clearly hearsay evidence or "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others." 10
In Calicdan v. Cendaña, 11 the Court, citing People v. Vda. De Ramos, 12 held that "when evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight for being patently hearsay. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence."
We quote with approval the discussion of Investigating Commissioner Ang in his Report and Recommendation dated 18 March 2014, to wit:
Complainant charges [respondent] with trying to influence a Judge to decide a case adverse to him. Such allegations are serious and if proven could hold a lawyer liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
However, no such evidence was presented by complainant that would prove said allegations. It appears that the only evidence he submitted that would point to the alleged influence peddling of [respondent] is the certification from the Office of the Barangay Captain of the extract in their blotter.
The contents or statements in the said barangay blotter came from the complainant. He allegedly heard one Evelyn Gozos Mapoy telling him that they cannot do anything about their case as [respondent] is in agreement with Judge Chavez that they will win the case.
Gleaned from the barangay blotter entry, [o]ther than what complainant allegedly heard from Evelyn, no other evidence would point to the allegations that [respondent] influenced Judge Chavez. The statement of Evelyn Mapoy has no probative value as the same can even be considered hearsay. If there was anyone guilty of influence peddling, then it would be Evelyn Mapoy as she allegedly uttered those statements.
In addition, if indeed Judge Chavez was influenced by [respondent], then it would naturally follow that Victoriana Gozos would win the case against complainant. However, the decision of Judge Chavez was for the dismissal of the case [filed by] Victoriana Gozos. Thus, with such decision, any suspicion of influence vanished into thin air. 13
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the present complaint against Atty. Oscar "Oca" L. Gozos, and consider this case CLOSED and TERMINATED. DETACa
The Court also NOTES the following: (a) Letter, dated 10 November 2017, of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano, Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, transmitting to the Court the documents pertaining to this case; (b) Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-227 dated 22 February 2015 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (c) Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-925, dated 19 April 2017, also of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Canon I. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
2. Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3.Rollo, p. 2.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 151-152.
6.Id. at 153.
7.Id. at 149.
8.Id. at 147.
9. A.C. No. 11836, 21 November 2017.
10.Calicdan v. Cendaña, 466 Phil. 894, 902 (2004).
11.Id.
12. 451 Phil. 214, 224 (2003) citing Sanvicente v. People, 441 Phil. 139, 153-154 (2002) and People v. Ubongen, 409 Phil. 140, 148 (2001).
13.Rollo, p. 153.