Oineza, Jr. v. Ansaldo, Jr.

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 8814. March 25, 2019.]

V. ESMERALDO OINEZA, JR., complainant, vs.ATTY. MIGUEL ANSALDO, JR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 25, 2019, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 8814 [Formerly CBD No. 08-2288] (V. Esmeraldo Oineza, Jr. v. Atty. Miguel Ansaldo, Jr.). — Before the Court is a Verified Complaint for Suspension and/or Disbarment dated August 12, 2008 filed by complainant V. Esmeraldo Oineza, Jr. against respondent Atty. Miguel D. Ansaldo, Jr. for conduct highly unbecoming of a member of the Bar.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In his complaint, Oineza sought the suspension and/or disbarment of Atty. Ansaldo for allegedly failing to pay him his broker's commission. Oineza narrated that in October 2003, they executed an Authority to Negotiate and a Memorandum of Agreement by virtue of which Atty. Ansaldo, as attorney-in-fact of landowners Aileen Ansaldo and Adrian Ansaldo, authorized Oineza, as real estate agent, to negotiate the sale of said landowner's properties with a total area of 1,206 hectares, more or less, located at various barangays in the Municipality of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. In the agreements, it was stipulated that the excess of P8.00 per square meter, or P80,000.00 per hectare of the selling price, shall be for the benefit of Oineza. According to Oineza, since through his efforts, the properties were sold to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for P926,427.12 for Aileen's portion and P1,840,663.11 for Adrian's portion, he is entitled to broker's fees of P246,193.70 and P919,261.11, respectively. But despite the fact that the DAR had already paid Atty. Ansaldo the purchase price, he nonetheless refused to pay him the agreed fees. 1

In his Answer, Atty. Ansaldo countered that the complaint is basically a monetary claim which should be properly threshed out in a civil proceeding. As such, whether the claim is valid, justified, legal, or morally enforceable should be determined by the civil trial court in a full-blown hearing. Atty. Ansaldo, likewise, argued that Oineza's claim is nothing but a figment of his imagination. This is because the entire property was sold to the DAR for only P2,767,090.23, or P2,294.43 per hectare, which is actually below the agreed threshold figure in their agreement of P80,000.00 per hectare. Further, Atty. Ansaldo pointed out that the Land Bank does not pay in cash, but rather issues bonds for the remainder payable in installments. Thus, Oineza should not be allowed to demand for his commission when the landowners have yet to wait for the maturity of the bonds. 2 SDAaTC

In a Report and Recommendation dated January 28, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the suspension of Atty. Ansaldo for a period of thirty (30) days for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner ruled that it may be true that the issue presented pertains to a civil dispute cognizable by the civil trial court. But during the hearing, it was determined that the sale of the properties to the DAR was a transaction only between the government, as represented by the DAR, and the landowners. Oineza's participation as "real estate agent" was unnecessary. Thus, it seemed that Oineza represented himself to Atty. Ansaldo as one who can "facilitate" the jacking-up or increase of the selling price through his connection inside the DAR. In other words, Oineza was a "fixer" or an "influence peddler" who claimed that he can deliver to Atty. Ansaldo a higher selling price. In Atty. Ansaldo's desire to obtain said higher price, he accepted Oineza's offer knowing that Oineza was not an employee of the DAR and would have no personality negotiating with the DAR on behalf of the landowners. Thus, the Commissioner held that Atty. Ansaldo should be sanctioned under Canon 1 which provides that "A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the law of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes," and Rule 1.02 which provides that "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law of lessening confidence in the legal system."3

In a Resolution 4 dated April 16, 2010, however, the Board of Governors (BOG) of the IBP-CBD reversed the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the case for lack of merit.

The Court's Ruling

The Court affirms the BOG's dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Ansaldo for lack of merit.

In recommending that Atty. Ansaldo must be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days, the Investigating Commissioner reasoned that this is because of his collusion with Oineza, a "fixer" and "influence peddler," to jack-up the selling price of the subject properties. The Court, however, cannot adopt said conclusion hook, line, and sinker. In the first place, as duly pointed out by Atty. Ansaldo, he actually sold the properties to the DAR for only P2,294.43 per hectare, or more than 90% below the agreed threshold figure of P80,000.00 per hectare. In the second place, a careful review of the records would reveal that it was the Government itself, through the Land Bank of the Philippines, and neither Atty. Ansaldo nor Oineza, that determined the value and selling price of the subject properties. To the Court, these facts are rather inconsistent with the generalization that Atty. Ansaldo maliciously conspired with Oineza in order to sell the properties at an exorbitant and unreasonable price to the detriment of the Government. acEHCD

Time and again, the Court has held that as a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved. An attorney is presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 5 Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, jurisprudence dictates that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. This means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. 6

In the present case, the Court finds an insufficiency of evidence that would warrant the recommended suspension of Atty. Ansaldo from the practice of law. There is just not enough proof to convince Us that Atty. Ansaldo, in bad faith and in violation of his obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility, truly aimed at pulling one over the Government. Collusion, for unethical and corrupt purposes, is such a serious charge that must always be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, it must be emphasized that the power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the Bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty. 7

Indeed, while this Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to absence, therefore, of evidence preponderant to prove that Atty. Ansaldo committed acts constituting grounds for suspension, the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner must necessarily be reversed. The same holds true for Oineza's complaint, which must necessarily be dismissed for being essentially a monetary claim that would be better threshed out in a proceeding before the trial court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution dated April 16, 2010 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus, the Complaint for Suspension and/or Disbarment against Atty. Miguel D. Ansaldo, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."(Leonen, J., on wellness leave)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.

2.Id. at 77.

3.Id. at 76-79.

4.Id. at 75.

5.Spouses Rafols v. Barrios, Jr., 629 Phil. 213, 229 (2010).

6.Guanzon v. Dojillo, A.C. No. 9850, August 6, 2018.

7.Spouses Williams v. Enriquez, (Minute Resolution) 518 Phil. 372, 378 (2006).