SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8701. July 4, 2018.]
EDUARDO S. RAMOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 July 2018which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8701 (Eduardo S. Ramos v. Atty. Albert Lee G. Angeles). — For resolution is a Complaint for Disbarment 1 dated July 14, 2010 filed by complainant Eduardo S. Ramos (Ramos) against respondent Atty. Albert Lee G. Angeles (Atty. Angeles) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The instant case is an offshoot of Civil Case No. 09-122496 entitled "Larrynel A. Tugade vs. Nelson T. Ramos" for damages with application for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Attachment filed before Branch 8, Manila (NCR) Regional Trial Court (court, for brevity). 2
Complainant Eduardo S. Ramos is one of the owners of Ed Ramos & Co., Inc., the registered owner of the subject property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 238402 located at No. 554 Altura Street, Sampaloc, Manila. 3
On February 5, 2010, at around 12 o'clock in the afternoon, Ramos alleged that about twenty (20) armed policemen forcibly opened and destroyed the steel gate of his property. It turned out that said policemen were assisting Sheriff Carlos Q. Barredo (Sheriff Barredo) and respondent Atty. Angeles for the implementation of the Amended Writ of Attachment 4 and Break-Open Order 5 issued by the court against Nelson T. Ramos, who was found to have a business address located at No. 554 Altura Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. Due to the stern refusal of the resident to allow entry, Sheriff Barredo engaged a welder to "break-open" the steel gate. EcTCAD
However, Ramos argued that he is the owner of the subject property, and not Nelson T. Ramos. He also added that the Writ of Attachment was issued against Nelson T. Ramos. He lamented that Atty. Angeles should not have drastically destroyed his gate and instead inquired first as to who is the real owner of the property. Ramos further claimed that when he asked Atty. Angeles what will happen to the property they destroyed, he averred that Atty. Angeles arrogantly told him to file his claim on the bond they filed before the court. Ramos, thus, insisted that such actuations of Atty. Angeles violated the Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility.
On September 13, 2010, the Court resolved to require Atty. Angeles to file Comment on the complaint against him. 6
In compliance thereto, in his Comment 7 dated November 5, 2010, Atty. Angeles maintained that while he was within the vicinity of the subject property, he neither went near nor enter the Altura premises until Ramos approached him and invited him to enter the premises where he was berated. He claimed that he never intervened with the implementation of the writ. Atty. Angeles likewise denied that he was arrogant when he was confronted by Ramos.
Atty. Angeles further averred that the incident was witnessed by three (3) barangay kagawads who all executed their respective affidavits attesting to the fact that: (a) he courteously spoke to Ramos during their conversation; (b) he was away from the subject property while the "Break-Open Order" was being enforced; and (c) it was Ramos who invited him to enter the property. 8
On November 24, 2010, the Court resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. 9
In its Report and Recommendation, 10 the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that the complaint against Atty. Angeles be dismissed for lack of merit. It found Atty. Angeles to be a mere observer in the implementation of the amended writ. It added that the decision as to how the writ shall be enforced was with the assigned sheriff and Atty. Angeles had nothing to do with it.
In Resolution No. XXI-2013-39 11 dated August 31, 2013, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case for lack of merit. Ramos filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but was denied anew by the IBP-Board of Governors in Resolution No. XXI-2014-327 dated May 4, 2014. HSAcaE
Hence, Ramos filed this petition.
RULING
The Court adopts the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. Thus, not only does the burden of proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on complainant, but the burden is not satisfied when complainant relies on mere assumptions and suspicions as evidence. 12
In the instant case, we find that Ramos failed to provide clear and convincing evidentiary support to his allegations of misconduct against Atty. Angeles. As the IBP aptly concluded, Atty. Angeles was merely observing the implementation of a lawful order. No substantial evidence was presented to prove that Atty. Angeles took an active part in the implementation of the writ, or that he was arrogant in his conversation with Ramos. Even the photos which Ramos submitted failed to convince as the same do not show that more than 20 armed policemen assisted in the implementation, or that Atty. Angeles interfered with the implementation of the writ as the latter was shown to be merely standing and observing.
It must be noted that the break-open of the steel gate of the subject property was authorized by a court Order 13 dated February 4, 2010 in view of the Amended Writ of Preliminary Attachment 14 reflecting the subject property as the second residence of Nelson T. Ramos. Thus, Ramos' allegation that Sheriff Barredo and Atty. Angeles acted without authority is without basis. Indeed, if Ramos felt aggrieved by the implementation of the writ, his remedy was to file a claim for damages under Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. 15 HESIcT
In fine, since Ramos failed to discharge the onus of proving his charges against Atty. Angeles by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, his present petition for review of the IBP's dismissal of his complaint must fail.
This Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to them when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven. 16
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2.Id. at 37-47.
3.Id. at 9.
4.Id. at 79-80.
5.Id. at 87-89.
6.Id. at 13.
7.Id. at 20-34.
8.Id. at 106, 110, 114.
9.Id. at 117.
10.Id. at 121-124.
11.Id. at 120.
12.Atty. Ramos v. Atty. Risos-Vidal, 730 Phil. 47, 53 (2014).
13.Rollo, pp. 87-89.
14.Id. at 79-80.
15. Sec. 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment. —
An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.
xxx xxx xxx
16.Garrido v. Atty. Quisumbing, A.C. No. 3724, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 616; Martin v. Felix, Jr., 246 Phil. 113, 134 (1988); Arcadio v. Atty. Ylagan, 227 Phil. 157, 165 (1986).