THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10851. April 3, 2017.]
ENGINEER SERGIO C. PASCUAL AND MR. EDELITO A. BADUA, complainants,vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL R. BALANON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 3, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10851(Engineer Sergio C. Pascual and Mr. Edelito A. Badua v. Atty. Emmanuel R. Balanon). — The instant disbarment case was filed by Complainants Engineer Sergio C. Pascual, a civil engineer and an incumbent City Councilor of Butuan City, and Edelito A. Badua against the Respondent Atty. Emmanuel A. Balanon. n
Complainants averred that respondent, in behalf of Luzviminda Santos-Balanon and her husband, sought their assistance in order to facilitate the sale of a 1,625 square-meter property on J.C Aquino Avenue in Butuan City ("subject property"). It appears that Santos-Balanon intended to sell the subject property to SM Prime Holdings.
Complainants purportedly agreed to organize a meeting between respondent and SM Prime Holdings in Manila, and in return, complainants would be paid a commission equivalent to 10% of the total purchase price. Complainant Pascual further paid for the airfare, hotel and other expenses for the said meeting. Respondent refunded the expenses.
Despite the sale of the subject property to SM Prime Holdings and demand from the complainants, respondent allegedly refused to pay, and pocketed the share of the purchase price received from SM Prime Holdings.
Complainants also alleged that respondent falsified the Tax Identification Number (TIN) of Santos-Balanon, and used his own TIN, in order to facilitate the release of SM Prime Holdings' payments to himself. This is because Santos-Balanon is purportedly an American citizen without any tax registration account in the Philippines. ETHIDa
In his Answer, 1 respondent denied that there was an agreement between him and complainants with respect to the giving of commission. He alleged that complainants are not even real estate brokers nor real estate practitioners. He alleged that he merely represented Santos-Balanon in the negotiation with the Plazas as to the former's claim in the property. Allegedly, the land was co-owned by the heirs of Democrito Plaza (Plazas), and it was the Plazas who sold the property to SM Prime Holdings despite Santos-Balanon's claim on the property. Eventually, the Plazas agreed to give Santos-Balanon a portion of the proceeds of the sale to SM Prime Holdings.
After examining the instant complaint, We resolve to dismiss it.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is on the complainant; the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. 2
Guided by the foregoing tenets, We find that complainants' allegations in support of the complaint are simply unsupported by clear and convincing proof of respondent's culpability. The foundation of respondent's purported transgression lies on the alleged agreement to give complainants the commission for facilitating the sale of the subject property to SM Prime Holdings. However, the record does not bear an iota of evidence that would establish such agreement, other than complainants' bare allegations. The purported Compromise Agreement which supposedly proves that the sale was consummated was not attached to the records. Neither can We infer complainants' role as brokers to the sale from the Joint Motion to Approve Compromise 3 in Civil Case No. 1509.
In any case, We find respondent's version of the transaction credible and availing, as it is more consistent with the evidence attached to the record, to wit:
First, the Special Power of Attorney 4 in favor of Respondent did not give him specific authority to sell the subject property.
Second, the subject property was registered in the name of Democrito Plaza and not under the name of Santos-Balanon.
Third, the Compromise Agreement was merely between Santos-Balanon and the Plaza heirs. 5
From the foregoing, it can be inferred that SM Prime Holdings bought the property from the Plaza heirs, and the latter, through a compromise agreement, merely gave Santos-Balanon her share on the proceeds of the sale corresponding to her interest in the subject property. It was not respondent who sold the property to SM Prime Holdings. If at all, respondent, through a Letter 6 dated February 21, 2013, merely informed SM Prime Holdings of the existence of Santos-Balanon's claim on the subject property, then currently under negotiation with SM Prime Holdings. He neither personally met nor negotiated with the prospective buyer of the subject property.
In our minds, it is unlikely that a seasoned company, such as SM Prime Holdings, would purchase, nor negotiate with a mere claimant of the property, instead of the registered owner thereof. Neither do We subscribe to the plea that SM Prime Holdings would deal with respondent, who is not shown to have specific authority to sell the subject property.
Interestingly, despite complainants' insistence that they brokered the sale of the subject property, no such evidence nor explanation was made as to their purported connections to SM Prime Holdings, or even prior transactions with the buyer corporation, or its key officials. Neither did complainants explain what exactly transpired during the purported meeting between respondent and SM Prime Holdings. Certainly, We cannot summarily hold complainants entitled to any compensation, and hold respondent administratively liable thereon, without a clear showing of the basis for the same.
Complainants, likewise, failed to adduce proof that respondent falsified or illegally used his own TIN in the transaction with SM Prime Holdings. Complainants merely submitted a Letter 7 dated November 28, 2014 requesting the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Regional Director of Butuan City to investigate respondent with respect to the use of his TIN in the sale of the subject property. It was not shown from the record that the concerned BIR Official made a finding pursuant to complainants' letter. Without an official finding thereon, nor any supporting evidence presented to Us, We are left to decide on the basis of plain accusations. Certainly, unsupported allegations do not constitute as legal basis for any finding of culpability.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. This Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 8 In the absence of such proof, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer remains and the complaint against him must be dismissed. 9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to DISMISS the Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Emmanuel R. Balanon for lack of merit. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-53.
2.Duque v. Brilliantes Jr., A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016.
3. Annex "P", Rollo, pp. 33-36.
4.Id. at pp. 20-21.
5. See Joint Motion to Approve Compromise, Id. at pp. 33-35.
6.Id. at p. 31.
7.Id. at p. 32.
8.Salunday v. Labitoria, A.M. No. CA-01-31, July 25, 2002.
9.Villamor v. Santos, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Badua" in the original document.