Rivera v. Macatangay

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12198. November 3, 2020.][Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2981]

MA. LYDIA S. RIVERA, complainant, vs. ATTY. OCTAVIO A. MACATANGAY, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 3, 2020which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12198 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2981] (Ma. Lydia S. Rivera, Complainant, v. Atty. Octavio A. Macatangay, Respondent). — Before this Court is a Petition for certiorari1 filed by Atty. Octavio A. Macatangay (Atty. Macatangay) against the Board of Governors (Board) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for finding him guilty of violating the Code of Professional Conduct (CPR) in its Resolution 2 dated 31 August 2017 and suspending him from the practice of law for six (6) months pursuant to the Complaint for Disbarment 3 filed by Ma. Lydia S. Rivera (Lydia). 4

Antecedents

The present case stems from a spat between Lydia and Atty. Macatangay's clients, spouses Evangeline (Evangeline) and Ferdinand (Ferdinand) Calingasan, over a building and lot located at No. 30 C.M. Recto Avenue, Lipa City, Batangas.

Lydia averred that she is the widow, one of the heirs, and administrator of the estate of the deceased Wilfredo V. Rivera (Wilfredo). 5 When Wilfredo was still alive, he filed an ejectment case against Evangeline involving the properties in issue. 6 Upon dismissal of the case by Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Cities 7 of Lipa, it was appealed to Branch 85, Regional Trial Court of the same city, which issued a Decision in favor of Wilfredo on 06 April 2005. 8 Thus, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued against Evangeline and Wilfredo took possession of the subject properties. 9

The dispute further reached the Court of Appeals (CA) which ruled that the donation inter vivos of the subject properties by Wilfredo in favor of Evangeline was revoked and that Wilfredo's lawful rights in said properties were reinstated. 10 Consequently, the CA ordered the cancellation of the existing titles, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-87494 and T-87495, under the name of Evangeline in its Decision dated 16 December 2008. 11 This Decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated 18 November 2009, 12 and an Entry of Judgment was issued on 28 January 2010. 13 Accordingly, for all legal intents and purposes, said titles are already void.

Despite knowledge of the finality of judgment cancelling said TCTs, Atty. Macatangay, counsel for Evangeline and Ferdinand, continued to utilize the nullified certificates of titles and misrepresented that they were still valid and subsisting. He even used the same in his pleadings filed before Branch 1, MTC of Lipa — specifically, the Manifestation (With Comment) 14 dated 12 January 2011 and the Motion to Lift Eviction Order and Related Processes 15 dated 17 January 2011 — long after this Court's Resolution became final and executory in 2010.

Worse, on 12 January 2011, Ferdinand and six (6) other men forced their way in the subject property. 16 Through violence, grave threats and intimidation, they were able to take possession of the building and lot. This incident was reported by Lydia to the police station of Lipa City where Ferdinand arrived accompanied by Atty. Macatangay. 17 Thereat, Atty. Macatangay presented the nullified titles, TCT Nos. T-87494 and T-87495, to justify his client's forcible entry and takeover of the property. 18

With the help of Philippine National Police of Batangas, Lydia was able to retake possession of the subject properties on 13 January 2011. 19 However, Ferdinand and Atty. Macatangay barged in the building and attacked Lydia verbally and physically. 20 This prompted Lydia to file a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Macatangay, claiming that his acts are in violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01, 1.02, Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 of the CPR.

Atty. Macatangay denied charges against him. 21 Although he admitted insisting that his clients, Ferdinand and Evangeline, are the owners of the disputed properties, he maintained the CA Decision is not binding until executed. In any event, after execution of the CA Decision, Evangeline will eventually become the owner thereof being the biological child of Wilfredo. 22

Report and Recommendation

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through its Report and Recommendation 23 dated 16 May 2013, recommended the suspension of Atty. Macatangay from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 and Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02 of the CPR.

In its Resolution 24 dated 11 October 2014, the IBP Board adopted and approved with modification the findings of the IBP-CBD, extending Atty. Macatangay's suspension to three (3) years, viz.:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and for violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 and Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility including Respondent's propensity to use documents already cancelled by the Supreme Court, Atty. Octavio A. Macatangay is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.25

Atty. Macatangay sought reconsideration of the IBP Board's Resolution, underscoring that he is already 75 years of age. 26 He asseverated that he did not commit any dishonesty in non-disclosing the annulment of titles of the disputed properties. First, Atty. Macatangay believed that members of the Batangas police are incapable of understanding matters of succession and inheritance when he presented the cancelled titles to them. 27 And second, Evangeline would own the disputed land by virtue of succession, 28 hence, the presentation of the cancelled titles was done in good faith. 29

The IBP Board, in its Resolution 30 dated 31 August 2017, partially granted Atty. Macatangay's Motion for Reconsideration and reduced his suspension to six (6) months, stated in this wise:

RESOLVED to PARTIALLY GRANT the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration by reducing the recommended penalty of Suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years to six (6) months, for humanitarian reason considering the age of Respondent and that he had apologized for whatever lapses he had committed.31

Hence, ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to the IBP Board, Atty. Macatangay filed the present petition for certiorari before this Court. 32

Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether Atty. Macatangay violated the CPR, which would warrant the imposition of administrative disciplinary sanctions.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is without merit.

At the outset, it must be pointed out that under Section 12 (b) and (c) of Rule 129-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 dated 13 October 2015, the IBP Board's resolution is merely recommendatory regardless of the penalty imposed on the lawyer. The amendment stresses the Court's authority to discipline a lawyer who transgresses his ethical duties under the CPR. 33 Hence, any final action on a lawyer's administrative liability shall be done by the Court based on the entire records of the case, including the IBP Board's recommendation, without need for the lawyer-respondent to file any additional pleading. 34

On this score, Atty. Macatangay's filing of the present petition for certiorari is unnecessary. Pursuant to the current rule, the IBP Board's resolution and the case records were forwarded to the Court. 35 The latter is then bound to fully consider all documents contained therein, regardless of any further pleading filed by any party — including Atty. Macatangay's petition for certiorari, which the Court shall nonetheless consider if only to completely resolve the merits of this case and determine respondent's actual administrative liability. 36

Given the foregoing, We now proceed to the crux of the instant case. Upon careful perusal of the records, We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

This Court maintains that Atty. Macatangay, indeed, violated the tenets of the CPR. As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, Atty. Macatangay violated Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.02 37 of the CPR when he made a serious misrepresentation in insisting that Evangeline is still the owner of the subject properties despite full knowledge that there is already an Entry of Judgment issued by this Court of its Resolution affirming the CA Decision. He was not candid and forthcoming in the pleadings he submitted before the MTC and in his representations to the policemen as regards the validity of the titles of the subject property. Worse, Atty. Macatangay belittled the intelligence of the police when he claimed that he did not believe they would be able to understand matters concerning succession and inheritance.

Without a doubt, Atty. Macatangay likewise violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 38 of the CPR. Instead of advising his clients to respect the law, he condoned and participated in the illegal entry committed by Ferdinand. Clearly, Atty. Macatangay not only tolerated the illegal and violent acts of his client, he likewise aided in performing the same. As a member of the bar, Atty. Macatangay should be reminded that he must accord respect to the judicial process of our courts. His client cannot simply barge in and take possession of the subject properties without any court order or writ of execution. 39 That the property would eventually be owned by Evangeline is not a valid defense. As long as the titles are not registered under Evangeline's name, the ownership of the subject properties must be respected and upheld, 40 especially by Atty. Macatangay. 41 Even though Evangeline may indeed succeed said properties, the proper process of transferring ownership of said land and building to Evangeline must be observed. 42 At any rate, ownership of the land is a different issue altogether, and one that has already been resolved by this Court.

Atty. Macatangay is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. His duties to the court are more significant than those which he owes to his client, and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics of the profession. 43 A lawyer is called upon to obey court orders and processes, and is expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of the court. 44

While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or enthusiasm is disfavored. 45 Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. 46 This, Atty. Macatangay indisputably failed to observe.

Regarding the penalty, this Court had imposed the penalty of suspension of six (6) months to one (1) year in previous cases wherein the same Canons and Rules of the CPR were violated. 47 Atty. Macatangay cannot use his advanced age as an impermeable shield from facing the consequences of his improper actions, which, it must be pointed out, he continuously insists are not dishonest and wrong.

It is worth stressing that the IBP Board had already reduced its recommended period of suspension from three (3) years to six (6) months in light of humanitarian reasons. Without a doubt, such Resolution is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion and is in fact more than what Atty. Macatangay deserves.

For his violation of the tenets of the CPR, the Court rules that Atty. Macatangay's suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months is justified.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Macatangay is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS, effective immediately with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Octavio A. Macatangay's personal record as attorney. Likewise, let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 205-212.

2.Id. at 252.

3.Id.at 2-7.

4.Id. at 252.

5.Id. at 2.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 17 and 34.

8.Id. at 2 and 34.

9.Id. at 46-48.

10.Id. at 17.

11.Id. at 159.

12.Id. at 32.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 33, 38-39.

15.Id. at 58, 63-64.

16.Id. at 3.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 4-5.

19.Id. at 6.

20.Id. at 80-81.

21.Id. at 85.

22.Id.

23.Id. at 163; signed by Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr.

24.Id. at 254.

25.Id.

26.Id. at 164-169.

27.Id. at 167.

28.Id.

29.Id. at 166.

30.Id. at 252.

31.Id.

32.Id. at 205.

33.See Festin v. Zubiri, A.C. No. 11600, 19 June 2017.

34.Id.

35.Id.

36.Id.

37. CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

RULE 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

RULE 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

38. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

39. An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Republic Act No. 386 (1950), Arts. 428-429.

40.See Philippine Bank of Communications v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 222958, 11 March 2020; Cagatao v. Almonte, G.R. No. 174004, 09 October 2013, 719 Phil. 241-256 (2013).

41.See Toledo v. Toledo, A.C. No. 266, 27 April 1963, 117 Phil. 768-776 (1963); 75 SCRA 747.

42.See Cagatao v. Almonte, G.R. No. 174004, 09 October 2013, 719 Phil. 241-256 (2013); Verceles v. Bacani, G.R. No. L-40107, 02 December 1987, 240 Phil. 117-121 (1987).

43.City Sheriff, Iligan City v. Fortunado, G.R. No. 80390, 27 March 1998, 351 Phil. 430-438 (1998).

44.Dumanlag v. Intong, A.C. No. 8638, 10 October 2016, 805 SCRA 489.

45.Bacatan v. Dadula, A.C. No. 10565, 07 September 2016, 794 Phil. 437-444 (2016).

46.Judge Dumlao, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho, A.C. No. 10498, 04 September 2018.

47. In Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. v. Chua (A.C. No. 6942, 17 July 2013, 714 Phil. 192-204 [2013]), the Court suspended Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua from the practice of law for six (6) months when he made it appear that his client has the rights of a licensee of the patent, when in fact it had no such rights. He was found guilty of deliberately and intentionally deceiving the court, and thereby violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR.

In Lim v. Mejica (A.C. No. 11121, 13 September 2016, 794 Phil. 560-573 [2016]), this Court found that Atty. Aquilino Mejica violated Canon 10 of the CPR when he failed to inform the Court of the pendency of his Motion for Reconsideration in connection with the same cause of action, and hereby suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months.

In Bernardino v. Santos (A.C. Nos. 10583 & 10584, 18 February 2015, 754 Phil. 52-73 [2015]), Atty. Victor Reyes Santos was found by this Court to have violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR when he failed to thwart his client from filing the Affidavit of Adjudication despite his knowledge of the existence of another heir to the estate in issue. He was thus suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.

In Sitaca v. Palomares, Jr. (A.C. No. 5285, 14 August 2019), the Court disbarred Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr. for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR when he conceptualized, planned, and implemented the falsified bond and release order for his son's temporary release.