SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12995. September 13, 2021.]
FELISA PAREDES AND THOMAS MILLS DIEMEN, complainants, vs.ATTY. ROWENA L. CONCEPCION-DE LUNA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12995 (Felisa Paredes and Thomas Mills Diemen v. Atty. Rowena L. Concepcion-De Luna). — Before the Court is a disbarment Complaint 1 filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Felisa Paredes and Thomas Mills Diemen (collectively, complainants) against Atty. Rowena L. Concepcion-De Luna (Atty. De Luna) for her alleged act of offering as evidence a falsified document in the ejectment case filed by her client against complainants.
The Antecedents
On June 24, 2014, Ms. Leilie Go Cedenio 2 (Cedenio) engaged the services of Delos Reyes Irog Braga and Associates Law Offices (Law Firm) to represent her in a case she wanted to file against complainants for unlawfully occupying her three-door apartment located in K-7 Kamias, Quezon City (subject property). The Law Firm assigned the case to Atty. De Luna. 3
Atty. De Luna then sent demand letters to complainants to vacate the subject property. Despite receipt of the demand letters, complainants refused to leave prompting Cedenio to file a Complaint for Ejectment 4 against them before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. 15-02255-SC. 5
Complainants countered that the subject property was initially owned by Spouses Felipe and Edith Mesina. They further alleged that the purported Deed of Absolute Sale 6 (Deed) over the property which Edith Mesina executed in favor of Cedenio was falsified because her husband, Felipe Mesina, died on April 10, 1983 and could not have signed the Deed on February 19, 1991. 7
Complainants also stated that: (1) Atty. De Luna has personal knowledge that Cedenio used the falsified Deed to register the subject property in her name in 1991; (2) Atty. De Luna also offered as evidence the falsified Deed in the ejectment case and used it before the Department of Building Official of Quezon City (Department) to demolish the subject property; and (3) were it not for the timely interception of the caretaker of the subject property, it could have been turned into rubble. 8 CAIHTE
In her Answer, 9 Atty. De Luna explained that: (1) there was no instance that she presented or offered as evidence the questioned Deed in the ejectment case; (2) the only evidence she adduced on behalf of Cedenio were the following: (a) Certification to File Action; 10 (b) Demand Letters 11 to vacate the subject property against complainants; (c) Proof of Receipts thereof; 12 and (d) Cedenio's Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) (41103) 004-2014001093 13 over the subject property issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Likewise, Atty. De Luna clarified that she neither has personal knowledge nor participation in the execution of the questioned Deed between Edith Mesina and Cedenio and in the registration of the subject property in the name of Cedenio under TCT (41103) 004-2014001093 in 1991 because during that time, she was only eight years old and not yet a lawyer. 14
Finally, Atty. De Luna denied ever using the Deed before the Department for the demolition of the subject property. She argued that complainants did not even present any evidence that she indeed sent a letter to the Department attaching the alleged falsified Deed with her signature. She claimed that complainants filed their Complaint in bad faith and asserted that she did not commit any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Proceedings before the IBP
During the mandatory conference, only Atty. De Luna appeared. Thus, the CBD-IBP deemed the mandatory conference terminated and directed the parties to file their respective position papers within 20 days from notice. 15 On January 23, 2017, Atty. De Luna filed her Position Paper 16 while complainants failed to file theirs, despite notice to do so.
In the Report and Recommendation 17 dated June 22, 2018, Investigating Commissioner Sherwin C. De Joya (Investigating Commissioner De Joya) recommended the dismissal of the complaint. According to him, the Deed was not among the documents presented by Atty. De Luna in the ejectment case filed by Cedenio against complainants. 18
In the Resolution 19 dated December 14, 2019, the IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) resolved to approve and adopt the report and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner De Joya.
Issue
Whether Atty. De Luna violated the CPR for allegedly using a falsified document in the ejectment case filed against complainants.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP-BOG and resolves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of prima facie case to warrant the penalty of disbarment against Atty. De Luna.
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the presumption that one is innocent of the charges against him or her until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings rests on the complainant. Considering the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is required to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. The burden is not satisfied when complainant relies on mere assumptions and suspicions as evidence. 20 DETACa
"Preponderance of evidence means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The onus probandi lies on the complainant, who is duty-bound to prove the veracity of the allegations in his or her complaint by a preponderance of evidence." 21
In the case, complainants failed to discharge the burden of proving Atty. De Luna's administrative liability by clear and preponderant evidence. Except for their bare allegations, complainants did not present any proof to substantiate their claim that Atty. De Luna has personal knowledge of the execution of the Deed or that she offered it as evidence in the ejectment case which Cedenio filed against them. The complainants also did not offer any evidence that Atty. De Luna used the Deed before the Department for the demolition of the subject property.
That Atty. De Luna could neither have personal knowledge nor participation in the execution of the Deed between Edith Mesina and Cedenio and in the registration of the subject property in the name of Cedenio under TCT (41103) 004-2014001093 is supported by the fact that Atty. De Luna, born on January 9, 1983, 22 was merely eight years old in 1991 — the year the Deed 23 was executed and the subject property was registered in the name of Cedenio. 24 Under the circumstances, it is impossible for Atty. De Luna to have personal knowledge of the occurrences behind the execution of the Deed and the registration of the subject property in the name of Cedenio.
Moreover, the IBP-CBD and IBP-BOG aptly determined that Atty. De Luna merely offered the following evidence in the ejectment case: (1) Certification to File Action; 25 (2) Demand Letters to vacate the subject property against complainants; 26 (3) Proof of Receipts of these Demand Letters; 27 and (4) Cedenio's TCT (41103) 004-2014001093 28 over the subject property issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
As a matter of fact, in the Resolution 29 dated April 11, 2016, in Criminal Case No. XV03INV16B-01363, the Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for falsification which complainants filed against Atty. De Luna holding that the alleged falsified Deed was not among the documentary evidence adduced by Atty. De Luna in the ejectment case filed against complainants, to wit:
In this connection, this Office is constrained to dismiss the complaint because the alleged Deed of Sale subject of this case is not among the Documents or Annexes used in the Ejectment case filed by herein respondents Leilie Go Cedeno [Cedenio] and Atty. [Rowena] Concepcion-De Luna against herein complainants Fely Paredes [Felisa] and Thomas Mills Damien [Damien]. 30
Besides, for the Court to ascertain the liability of Atty. De Luna based on the validity of the questioned Deed is to ultimately determine the rights of complainants over the subject property and collaterally attack the validity of Cedenio's title over it. The Court stresses that in administrative cases, neither the IBP nor the Court has the authority to inquire into or determine the rights of the parties over any property in dispute. 31 The IBP and the Court also do not make any determination as to the validity of documents or the regularity of the subject sales. 32 The function of the IBP and the Court in administrative cases is limited to disciplining lawyers 33 which the Court sees no reason to exercise in this case.
All told, complainants failed to discharge the burden of proving that Atty. De Luna committed any violation of the CPR or the Lawyer's Oath in handling the ejectment case filed by Cedenio against complainants. aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, the Notice of Resolution dated December 14, 2019 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is NOTED. The Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Director for Bar Discipline, as transmitted in the Letter dated January 14, 2021, which, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors likewise adopted and approved. The complaint against Atty. Rowena Concepcion-De Luna is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2. Named as Leilie Go Cedeno in some parts of the rollo.
3.Rollo, pp. 22-23.
4.Id. at 30-33.
5.Id. at 23.
6.Id. at 10-12.
7.Id. at 2-3.
8.Id. at 3-4.
9.Id. at 22-27.
10.Id. at 36.
11.Id. at 35, 39.
12.Id. at 40, 44.
13.Id. at 52-56.
14.Id. at 26.
15.Id. at 102.
16.Id. at 122-135.
17.Id. at 239-242.
18.Id. at 241.
19.Id. at 237.
20.Armilla-Calderon v. Lapore, A.C. No. 10619 (Resolution), September 2, 2020.
21.Id.
22.Rollo, p. 136.
23.Id. at 10.
24.Id. at 52.
25.Id. at 36.
26.Id. at 35, 39.
27.Id. at 40, 44.
28.Id. at 52-53.
29.Id. at 210; penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Alexis G. Bartolome.
30.Id.
31. See Capinpin v. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, September 3, 2020.
32.Id.
33.Id.