THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12134. April 25, 2018.]
MA. REGINA S. PERALTA, petitioner,vs. ATTY. RENE ALEXIS P. VILLARENTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 25, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12134 (Ma. Regina S. Peralta vs. Atty. Rene Alexis P. Villarente). — For resolution by the Court is an action for disbarment filed by complainant Ma. Regina S. Peralta against respondent Atty. Rene Alexis P. Villarente (Atty. Villarente) for allegedly violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and the Lawyer's Oath.
The Facts
As culled from the records, the facts of the complaint are as follows:
In a nutshell, the complainant Ma. Regina S. Peralta accuses the respondent Atty. Villarente of the following: (1) deceit, falsification of documents & false representations [i] when he claimed to have prepared the Judicial Affidavits of Jonathon Bentley-Stevens submitted in Civil Case No. 31, 160-07 and in Civil Case No. 32, 302-08, when in truth and in fact, he did not do so; [ii] when he submitted in Civil Case No. 31, 160-07 the November 18, 2014 Judicial Affidavit of Stevens containing his false attestation under oath; [iii] when he misquoted the TSN dated April 25, 2008 to suit the testimony of Stevens; and [iv] when he introduced in evidence in Civil Case No. 32, 302-08 a falsified version of the Deed of Assignment dated July 30, 1998, a copy of which he attached as Exhibit "57"; (2) [i] gross improprieties when he allowed his client to prepare his own judicial affidavit; and [ii] when he agreed to set the hearing in Civil Case No. 32, 302-08 on November 23 and 24, 2015 and then cause the cancellation thereof; (3) highly unprofessional conduct when he disrespected the judge by raising his voice and made his arguments in a sarcastic manner; and (4) highly offensive, rude and combative behavior towards the counsel for the complainant Peralta.
The respondent Atty. Rene Alexis P. Villarente filed his Verified Answer dated June 15, 2016, wherein he specifically denied the allegations in the complaint: (1) the Judicial Affidavit of Jonathon Bentley-Stevens in Civil Case No. 32, 160-07 (sic) was taken by Atty. Pacifico J. Abrahan. However, Atty. Abraham and Atty. Villarente, both of them, conducted the direct examination on the witness Jonathon Bentley-Stevens (Annex "1", Answer); (2) In the matter of the preparation of the Judicial Affidavit of Jonathon Bentley-Stevens, the respondent Atty. Villarente avers that he simply asked the questions and Jonathon Bentley-Stevens gave the answers. The witness prepared his own Judicial Affidavit. The questions asked and the answers given were then religiously and faithfully recorded pursuant to the judicial affidavit rule; (3) the questions in the judicial affidavit are not misleading and the answers therein were provided by the witness and not by the respondent Atty. Villarente; (4) respondent did not misquote a portion of the TSN dated April 25, 2008. The witness Jonathon Bentley-Stevens quoted the portion of the TSN in answer to the question on direct examination, respondent Atty. Villarente merely asked the questions and the answer was given and recorded in accordance with the rule on judicial affidavit; (5) the matter of Exhibit "57", this was introduced by the witness Jonathon Bentley-Stevens in answer to the question on direct examination, and that the respondent Atty. Villarente was not the one who introduced the same but the witness Stevens; (6) that respondent Atty. Villarente was not disrespectful towards a fellow lawyer as well as the presiding judge otherwise he would have been cited in contempt of court; (7) the matter of postponement of pre-scheduled cases was filed in good faith for good reason. 1
IBP Recommendation
After investigation, Investigating Commissioner Roland B. Beltran of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) submitted the following Report and Recommendation dated April 18, 2017:
III. Report and Recommendation —
The complaint is premature and without merit.
Complainant Ma. Regina S. Peralta could have filed the necessary pleading/objections in court where the judicial affidavits of Jonathon Bentley-Stevens were presented, and allow the presiding judge to have a first crack and rule on the merits of her objections. Unfortunately, the complainant precipitately concluded that there were infirmities and irregularities in the judicial affidavits of Stevens and that respondent Atty. Villarente is the one responsible without first raising her concerns before the court where these documents had been presented. The same is true with the allegations that the respondent Atty. Villarente misquoted TSN dated April 25, 2008 to suit the testimony of Stevens, and introducing in evidence a falsified Deed of Assignment marked as Exhibit "57".
These are all conclusions without first establishing the fact in issue. Cases of this nature bring intolerable injustice and unfairness not only to respondent Atty. Villarente but those similarly situated who are oftentimes at the receiving end thereby eroding the very foundation of justice.
Further, the complainant's allegations of unprofessional conduct against the presiding judge; and offensive, rude and combative behavior towards a fellow lawyer, must likewise fail. If these were true, the presiding judge would have cited the respondent Atty. Villarente in direct contempt of court; and that the lawyer of complainant Peralta did not complain of alleged offensive, rudeness and combative conduct on the part of Atty. Villarente.
The matter of postponement of the case even if this was by prior agreement is not unreasonable and as explained by the respondent Atty. Villarente was due to exigencies that he has to go to Manila to assist the bar candidate of the law school where he is a professor of law.
To be sure, Jurisprudence teaches us that the complainant Ma. Regina S. Peralta has the burden to prove her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Until then, there cannot be a finding that the respondent Atty. Villarente committed deceit, falsification of documents & false representations; gross improprieties; highly unprofessional conduct; and highly offensive, rude and combative behavior towards a fellow lawyer.
xxx xxx xxx
Atty. Villarente's fitness to remain in the practice of law should not be disturbed unless contrary proof is presented since said respondent enjoys what the law and jurisprudence provide as presumptions in favor of an attorney in that he is presumed innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed the duties in accordance with his oath. (In Re: De Guzman, 154 Phil. 127 [1974]; De Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 [1939]; In Re: Tiongko, 43 Phil. 191 [1992]; Acosta v. Serrano 166 Phil. 257 [1977].)
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against Atty. Rene Alexis P. Villarente be dismissed for lack of merit. 2
Acting on said recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-1189 dated June 17, 2017 upholding the dismissal of the complaint. Thus,
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of facts of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint.
As of March 15, 2018, no Motion for Reconsideration or Petition for Review was filed by either party.
The Court's Ruling
The Court affirms the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, as adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
It is well-settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant; and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint with substantial evidence. 3 In Arsenio v. Atty. Tabuzo, 4 this Court held that substantial evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty on a member of the bar.
In the case at bar, the complainant utterly failed to sufficiently establish its claims that Atty. Villarente violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Rules of Court, and the Lawyer's Oath. As such, the Complaint against Atty. Villarente must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Rene Alexis P. Villarente is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at 2-3, 6.
3.Natanauan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No. 4269, October 11, 2016 citing Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016.
4. A.C. No. 8658, April 24, 2017.