Rabara v. Irao

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11879. February 21, 2018.]

REUBEN R. RABARA, complainant,vs. ATTY. PAUL BERNARD T. IRAO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 21, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 11879 (Reuben R. Rabara, complainantv. Atty. Paul Bernard T. Irao, respondent) — For the resolution of the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment 1 filed by complainant Reuben R. Rabara against respondent Atty. Paul Bernard T. Irao for alleged violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 2 and Rule 20.03 of Canon 20 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 4

Complainant claims that respondent represented himself as one of the lawyers of Planters Development Bank, the bank that sought the issuance of a writ of replevin which caused the seizure of complainant's pick-up trucks. 5 Complainant avers that, during one of the court hearings, respondent told him that he could facilitate the release of the pick-up truck once complainant paid P177,902.16 to the bank and P10,000.00 to respondent. 6 Despite payment of the said fees, however, respondent was not able to release the pick-up truck to complainant.

Respondent, on his part, states that this is a case where somebody asks for your assistance with one hand, then stabs you with the other. 7 Respondent maintains that it was complainant who asked for his assistance, and that he was the one who kept sending him text messages and calling him, as shown by respondent's short message service (SMS) and call logs. Wanting to rid himself of complainant's numerous calls and texts, respondent suggested that: complainant compute what he thought was the right amount to pay in order to settle his obligations with the bank, draw a manager's check payable to the bank, and hand it to respondent who would ask the bank if the amount was acceptable. Respondent states, however, that he never promised complainant that the bank would accept the check and that the pick-up truck would be released. 8

As to the P10,000.00 fee, respondent claims that complainant insisted on hiring him so he said that he usually charge an acceptance fee of P10,000.00; but that if complainant wanted respondent to find him a lawyer to represent him before the bank, complainant would have to pay the new lawyer another P10,000.00. Complainant agreed to these terms. 9

Respondent transmitted the check to the bank, but it was not encashed because the bank found the amount insufficient and unacceptable. 10 Respondent conveyed this to complainant. 11 Respondent also initiated the return of the P10,000.00 but complainant failed to provide respondent his bank account details. 12 During the administrative proceedings, respondent consigned the check and the P10,000.00 to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD); these were later on released to complainant.

Investigating Commissioner Hannibal Augustus B. Bobis recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. 13

Upon review, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (BG-IBP) initially reversed the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and recommended the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month. 14 Upon further review, however, the BG-IBP granted respondent's motion for reconsideration and adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation dismissing the case against respondent. 15

We resolve to dismiss the complaint.

The Investigating Commissioner was correct in making the following observations:

The complainant utterly failed to make out a sufficient case for the respondent's allegedly violating the pertinent provisions of the CPR. Under the circumstances, and given the exchange of text messages between the parties, it was the complainant who sought out the respondent and, despite the latter's reluctance, pestered the respondent into helping the said complainant.

The respondent's willingness to consign the amount in question at the earliest opportunity gives credence to the respondent's version of the events, and the respondent's claim that he merely tried to stop from being repeatedly pestered by the complainant.

Of note in this case is that on March 11, 2014 — or while this case was pending — the complainant moved for the release of the consigned amounts and this was duly granted by the investigating commissioner. This reveals that the complainant's objective all along was to secure the release of the said amounts. 16

Time and again, the Court has ruled that the power to disbar is exercised only in clear cases of misconduct. In Francia v. Abdon, 17 the Court, citing Alitagtag v. Garcia, 18 held that:

Indeed, 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 the character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. Without doubt, a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. However, the said penalties are imposed with great caution, because they are the most severe forms of disciplinary action and their consequences are beyond repair. 19

WHEREFORE, the Court NOTES the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-915 dated 13 December 2014 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court further NOTES the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-650 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, and the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the said resolution which, in turn, adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The complaint against Atty. Paul Bernard T. Irao is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Accordingly, this case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.

2. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

3. A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client.

4.Rollo, pp. 35-37.

5.Id. at 1.

6.Id. at 2.

7.Id. at 13.

8.Id. at 14.

9.Id. at 15.

10.Id. at 17.

11.Id. at 16.

12.Id. at 16.

13.Id. at 102.

14. Id. at 95; Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-915.

15. Id. at 93; Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-650.

16. Id. at 101-102.

17. 739 Phil. 299 (2014).

18. 451 Phil. 420, 426 (2003).

19. Francia v. Abadon, supra note 17 at 311-312.