Ortiz v. Balajadia-Roa

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11932. April 4, 2018.]

VICTOR ORTIZ, petitioner,vs. ATTY. CARMENCITA MIA BALAJADIA-ROA AND ATTY. KARINA GAY M. BALAJADIA-LIGGAYU, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 11932 (Victor Ortiz vs. Atty. Carmencita Mia Balajadia-Roa and Atty. Karina Gay M. Balajadia-Liggayu). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the June 5, 2015 and April 19, 2017 Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors dismissing the disbarment complaint against respondents Atty. Carmencita Mia Balajadia-Roa (Atty. Carmencita) and Atty. Karina Gay Balajadia-Liggayu (Atty. Karina) for their alleged failure to render an accounting and turnover of documents in their possession.

As culled from the records, the facts of the complaint are as follows:

Complainant Victor Ortiz, claiming to be the executor and administrator of the testate estate of Carmen Vda. De Zabarte who died on 02 July 2011 at the age of 94 years old (Exhibit "A"), brings his complaint before this office against respondents [Atty. Carmencita] and [Atty. Karina] due to [alleged] failure to render an accounting and liquidation of the moneys, shares of stocks and shares/profit from the properties of their former client, the late Carmen Vda. De Zabarte, and failure to turn over documents despite demand, in violation of Canon 16, Rule 1601 and Rule 1603; and Canon 21, Rule 21.01 and Rule 21.02.

On September 30, 2011, Victor filed a Petition for Probate of the Will and Issuance of Letter Testamentary before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98, entitled "In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will [of] Deceased Carmen Ortiz Vda. De Zabarte; Victor Ortiz, Executor" (Exhibit "L").

Respondent Attorneys x x x deny that Victor Ortiz is the executor and administrator of the testate estate of Carmen Vda. De Zabarte; that the probate proceedings is contested owing to the alleged defect in the Notarial Will and the existence of a Holographic Will, among other grounds (Exhibit "O")[;] [that] the respondent Attorneys have existing retainer and conservator agreement with the late Carmen Vda. de Zabarte, notarized by Atty. Donato C. Maguiat (Exhibit "2"), which is coupled with interest wherein part of the covenants therein is that they are entitled to certain compensation as conservators of the properties of the late Carmen Vda de Zabarte, thusly, cannot be revoked unilaterally. 1

In his Report and Recommendation dated March 10, 2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner Roland B. Beltran recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. We quote:

The complaint of Victor Ortiz is premature. This office cannot preempt the probate court from ruling on the legal and factual issues tendered by the parties therein [for] to do so would only create havoc in the sound administration of justice [where] findings of the probate court may not be consistent with our own. The issue of accounting and turnover of documents in the possession of the respondent Attorneys x x x must be tackled in the probate court.

Respondent Attorneys cannot be compelled to heed the demand of accounting of the clients' funds unless Victor Ortiz can prove that he has the legal personality to issue such demand[;] to do otherwise would breach the privileged communication wherein the respondent Attorneys [Carmencita] and [Karina] are bound by reason of the attorney-client relationship.

Complainant Victor Ortiz should await the resolution of the probate court on all factual and legal issues. He should secure an order from the probate court directing the respondent Attorneys x x x to render an accounting for purposes of collation, and settlement of the taxes, debts and obligations in accordance with the preference of payment, before the net estate can be distributed to the heirs, legatees or devisees, regardless [whether] the distribution of the net estate is in accordance with the wishes of the decedent expressed in the Holographic Will or the Notarial Will.

xxx xxx xxx

Victor failed to prove his allegations anent the corrupt character of the act done by respondent Attorneys x x x.

xxx xxx xxx

Indubitably, the law and jurisprudence provide certain presumptions in favor of Attorneys [Carmencita] and [Karina] that they are innocent of the charges against them until the contrary is proved, and that as [officers] of the court, they are presumed to have performed the duties in accordance with their oath.

It has been said that the profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It is a lifetime profession. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney may be able to amass considerable means to support himself and his family, besides the honor and prestige that accompany his office and profession. To deprive him of such honored station in life which would result in irreparable injury must require proof of the highest degree, which We find nowhere here. x x x

WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that the complaint against [Atty. Carmencita] and [Atty. Karina] be dismissed for lack of merit. 2

In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-395 dated June 5, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Beltran and ordered the dismissal of the case against respondent attorneys. Thus:

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", finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and the Complaint unmeritorious. Thus, the case is hereby DISMISSED. 3

Complainant moved for, but was denied, reconsideration in Resolution No. XXII-2017-970 dated April 19, 2017. Hence, this petition.

After due consideration, the Court finds the dismissal of the complaint to be moored to the evidence on record and in accord with the pertinent rules and jurisprudence on disbarment and bar discipline.

It is a well-established doctrine that the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings always rests on the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. 4 If the complainant fails to meet the required standard, this Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. 5

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED and the complaint against respondents Atty. Carmencita Mia Balajadia-Roa and Atty. Karina Gay Balajadia-Liggayu is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITNDivision Clerk of Court

 

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 365-366.

2.Id. at 366-368.

3.Id. at 1.

4.Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361, 371.

5.Jimenez v. Jimenez, 517 Phil. 68, 73 (2006).