SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9199. June 1, 2016.][Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3644]
ATTY. MA. HAZELINA T. MILITANTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. NICOLE R. BATINGANA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 June 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9199 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3644 — Atty. Ma. Hazelina T. Militante v. Atty. Nicole R. Batingana)
Subject of this resolution is the petition for disbarment 1 filed by Atty. Ma. Hazelina T. Militante (complainant) against Atty. Nicole R. Batingana (respondent) for allegedly violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Complainant's position
On March 31, 2011, complainant filed a Petition for Guardianship in behalf of minor Criselda M. Cada (Criselda) before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC-QC). On April 5, 2011, Raquel M. Cada-Deapera (Raquel) filed a motion to dismiss 2 raising improper venue and litis pendentia. Respondent executed an Affidavit, 3 which was attached as one of the documentary evidence of the motion to dismiss. In its July 12, 2011 Order, 4 the RTC-QC dismissed the petition for guardianship on the ground of litis pendentia.
Complainant alleged that respondent's notarized affidavit was a falsity. She pointed out that in respondent's affidavit, it was stated that the latter was informed by a staff of the Administration Office of San Benissa Garden Villas Condominium (San Benissa) in Commonwealth Avenue Extension, Quezon City, that complainant owned Unit 4312 but did not live there as it was occupied by her tenant. Complainant vehemently denied the information insisting that she resided in the said condominium unit. She claimed that based on the Official Letter 5 issued by Manuel Claro I. Mojica (Mojica), Property Administrator of San Benissa, the staff referred to by respondent was unauthorized to give statements as she was merely a clerk, that she could not remember talking to respondent and that she never said that the unit was rented.
Respondent's position
On the other hand, respondent averred that she was a former associate of Caguioa & Gatmaytan Law Office (C&G). As an associate of C&G, she assisted in the petition for habeas corpus for the return of the minor Criselda filed before the Caloocan Regional Trial Court (RTC-Caloocan). The said petition was filed by their client, Raquel, against complainant. 6
On March 25, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus ordering the sheriff to take Criselda and bring her before the court. On March 28, 2011, the sheriff attempted to serve the writ at complainant's residence at No. 24 Bangkal St., Amparo Village, Novaliches, Caloocan City and at her office at the Sandiganbayan. It was only on March 29, 2011, that the writ was served in complainant's Caloocan home, but she failed to appear before the RTC-Caloocan. 7
After learning of complainant's petition for guardianship filed before the RTC-QC, Raquel filed a manifestation before the RTC-Caloocan informing it of her Quezon City address. Acting thereon, the RTC-Caloocan issued an order allowing the sheriff to cause the service of the orders and court processes at her address at San Benissa. 8
Thus, on April 1, 2011, respondent and the sheriff went to San Benissa to serve the writ and other court processes issued by the RTC-Caloocan. Upon arriving, the security guards prevented them from proceeding to the complainant's unit and instead advised them to go to the Administration Office. There, respondent was informed by Micheal Solaina (Solaina), a staff in the administration office, that complainant did not live in the unit she owned as it was occupied by her tenant. Upon verifying that no one was at the said unit, the sheriff asked Solaina to receive the documents and to deliver them to the unit once anyone arrived. 9 Further, respondent verified with the Office of Barangay 179, Caloocan to confirm whether complainant resided in Caloocan. She was able to secure a barangay certification attesting she and her spouse were bonafide residents of Barangay 179, Caloocan at 24 Bangkal St., Amparo Village. 10 HSAcaE
In its August 15, 2012 Resolution, 11 the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
In his Commissioner's Report, 12 dated December 3, 2014, Commissioner Jose I. de la Rama, Jr. (Commissioner de la Rama) recommended the dismissal of the petition for disbarment. He opined that based on the evidence on record, respondent did not falsify the affidavit attached in the motion to dismiss. Commissioner de la Rama explained that the complaint for falsification was dismissed because there was no showing that the alleged falsity was deliberately and willfully committed by respondent. Moreover, respondent was able to present evidence to establish that complainant indeed resided in Caloocan. As such, Commissioner de la Rama concluded that complainant was unable to clearly and substantially establish the alleged falsification.
In its February 22, 2015 Resolution, 13 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of Commissioner de la Rama. The resolution reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the case against Respondent is hereby DISMISSED.
Hence, the case was transmitted to the Court for review.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the Board's findings and recommendation of the Board of Governors.
In Francia v. Atty. Abdon, 14 the Court reminded that the complainant in disbarment proceedings has the burden of establishing his case by preponderance of evidence, to wit:
"It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof."
In Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., the Court reiterated that a preponderance of evidence is necessary before a lawyer may be held administratively liable, to wit:
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must be dismissed. HESIcT
Hence, complainant must prove by preponderance of evidence that respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. The test is whether the lawyer's conduct shows him or her to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor; or whether it renders him or her unworthy to continue as an officer the court. 15
Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, or consent to the doing of any in Court; or shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Complainant, however, failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that respondent committed any falsehood in executing the subject affidavit.
Respondent's allegations in her affidavit were supported by the sheriff report and the barangay certification that complainant was a resident of Caloocan. Hence, respondent cannot be deemed to have falsified her affidavit considering that her averments were substantiated by supporting documents. The dismissal of the complaint of falsification before the prosecutor's office bolsters the fact that respondent did not commit any falsehood in executing the subject affidavit.
Even if it were true that complainant indeed resided in San Benissa respondent could not still be held liable on the basis of good faith. In Asturias v. Attys. Serrano and Samson, 16 the Court ruled that the false statements must have been deliberately made before a lawyer may be held administratively liable. Complainant failed to show that respondent deliberately made false statements in her affidavit especially because her allegations therein were supported by documentary evidence.
At any rate, no motion for reconsideration or petition has been filed before the Court as of March 6, 2016.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE Resolution No. XXI-2015-237 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The complaint against respondent Atty. Nicole R. Batingana is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.(Brion, J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Volume I, pp. 1-11.
2. Id. at 14-28.
3. Id. at 29-30.
4. Issued by Presiding Judge Cecilyn E. Burgos-Villavert; id. at 134-136.
5. Rollo, Volume II, p. 662.
6. Rollo, Volume I, pp. 51-52.
7. Id. at 52.
8. Id. at 52-53.
9. Id. at 53.
10. Id. at 54.
11. Id. at 413-414.
12. Rollo, Volume II, pp. 813-818.
13. Id. at 811-812.
14. A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014.
15. Atty. Villamor, Jr. v. Attys. Santos and Maranan, A.C. No. 9868, April 22, 2015.
16. A.C. No. 6538, November 25, 2005.