SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10948. January 18, 2016.][Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3454]
LEAH N. RAFANAN, petitioner,vs. ATTY. EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10948 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3454] — Leah N. Rafanan v. Atty. Earl Anthony C. Gambe
For alleged violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, 1 Rule 1.01 2 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, 3 Leah Rafanan (Leah) filed on June 23, 2011 a complaint 4 against respondent Atty. Earl Anthony Gambe (Atty. Gambe). She alleged that Atty. Gambe had notarized two different documents which bear the same entry in his Notarial Book, i.e., Doc. No. 90; Page No. 18; Book No. IX. The first document is a Memorandum of Agreement dated July 24, 1993 assigning the right of the Heirs of Romana Vacalares over a 188-hectare timberland in Misamis Oriental covered by a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-administered Forest Land Grazing Leasing Agreement (FLGLA) to Golden Gate Agro Resources Corporation (GGARC). The other document is a Deed of Assignment with Waiver of Rights 5 also dated July 24, 1993 assigning the same right to Ronald Rafanan (Ronald), the son of GGARC's managing stockholder. To her, the lawyer intentionally and fraudulently executed the latter document to unduly favor Ronald over the right of GGARC, a family corporation, to the timberland.
Atty. Gambe filed his Answer, 6 denying the alleged anomaly. He averred that the Memorandum of Agreement is not a perfected transaction and was cancelled, all copies of which were shred by his staff. GGARC had never transacted with the Heirs of Romana Vacalares, nor was there any GGARC board resolution about the assignment/sale of rights. He further explained that Ronald originally planned to place the transaction in the family corporation's name but since this is not within GGARC's primary purpose, Ronald then requested him to replace the document with a valid one, which is the Assignment with Waiver of Rights as Ronald, in his personal capacity, was interested in the timberland, and for which Ronald eventually paid the consideration with his personal funds. Atty. Gambe's claims are supported by the affidavits executed by GGARC corporate president Jacinto Rafanan, 7 by Ronald himself, 8 and by Atty. Edgardo Raagas, 9 the lawyer and in-law of the Heirs of Romana Vacalares. Atty. Gambe likewise submitted as evidence the DENR certification dated March 10, 2006 10 that states that Ronald is the FLGLA holder covering the timberland, as well as the DENR letter dated June 29, 2011, 11 stating that its office has no recorded transaction involving GGARC and thus denying Leah's protest for Ronald's FLGLA application over the timberland. SaCIDT
In an Order dated October 29, 2012, 12 the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) deferred the mandatory conference to January 7, 2013 in view of the discussion between the parties whether to pursue the case or not. Leah's counsel also manifested that upon verification with the DENR, they could not produce the original Memorandum of Agreement.
On January 7, 2013, the CBD received Leah's Motion to Withdraw Complaint 13 together with her Affidavit of Desistance, 14 explaining that she is convinced that no such Memorandum of Agreement exists, and that the administrative case was the result of a misunderstanding and a misapprehension of facts.
Investigating Commissioner Peter Corvera (Commissioner Corvera) in his January 2, 2014 Report and Recommendation, 15 upon a factual finding that the rights to the timberland were actually intended to be transferred to Ronald and never to GGARC, recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of an anomaly allegedly committed by Atty. Gambe.
In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-780 dated October 11, 2014, 16 the IBP Board of Governors accepted and adopted Commissioner Corvera's recommendation.
The Court likewise adopts and accepts the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation.
As correctly pointed out by the IBP, in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon complainant. Records show that Leah acknowledged that she could not even produce the Memorandum of Agreement allegedly in the custody of the DENR. This circumstance, together with the DENR 2006 certification and 2011 letter highlighting that Ronald is the FLGLA holder, bolsters Atty. Gambe's claim that said Memorandum has been cancelled and has already been replaced by the Assignment with Waiver of Rights executed in Ronald's favor, as attested by the affidavits of the parties who were privy to the Assignment with Waiver of Rights. Even Leah's documentary evidence, which are documents issued by the DENR in the years 2006 17 and 2008, 18 show that it has always dealt with Ronald regarding the FLGLA covering the timberland and never the family corporation.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must be dismissed. 19
WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Earl Anthony C. Gambe is DISMISSED. Considering that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed with the Court per records of the Office of the Bar Confidant, this case is declared CLOSED andTERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.''
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The pertinent provision is Section 2 (e) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, viz.: (e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
2. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
4. Rollo, pp. 3-9.
5. Id. at 14-16.
6. Id. at 32-43.
7. Id. at 44-45.
8. Id. at 48-49.
9. Id. at 46-47.
10. Id. at 50.
11. Id. at 51.
12. Id. at 136.
13. Id. at 138.
14. Id. at 139.
15. Id. at 143-148.
16. Id. at 142.
17. Id. at 23.
18. Id. at 24.
19. Francia v. Atty. Reynaldo Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 341, 350.