Rosario, Jr. v. Avila III

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 11943. March 5, 2018.]

EDUARDO R. ROSARIO, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. RUDYARD A. AVILA III AND APVLAW, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 5, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"A.C. No. 11943 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2868] (Eduardo R. Rosario, Jr. v. Atty. Rudyard A. Avila III and APVLAW, et al.) — The Court resolves to NOTE:

(1) the letter dated November 10, 2017 of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano, Director of Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, transmitting to this Court the documents pertaining to this case;

(2) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-598 dated September 27, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the complaint; and

(3) the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-922 dated April 19, 2017 of the IBP BOG denying the motion for reconsideration there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the BOG.

Before the Court is a Complaint 1 for disbarment filed by Eduardo R. Rosario, Jr. (complainant) against Atty. Rudyard A. Avila III (Atty. Avila) and APVLAW, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath; Canon 1, Canon 15 and Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Antecedents

Complainant is the father of Julie Ann Rosario-Organista (Organista), who filed an administrative complaint before the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) against Dr. Emiliano U. Maluto, Jr. (Dr. Maluto). Atty. Avila is the counsel of Dr. Maluto in the said PRC case. He is a partner in the law firm APVLAW.

On October 2, 2009, Dr. Maluto filed a Complaint for Libel 2 against complainant and Organista before the Prosecutor's Office of Manila, seeking to hold them liable for alleged malicious actuations in the letter-complaint sent to the PRC. Atty. Avila and APVLAW assisted Dr. Maluto in filing this complaint. On January 13, 2010, the prosecutor's office dismissed the complaint on the ground that the letter-complaint filed before the PRC was "covered by the doctrine of privileged communication"; it was only filed by Dr. Maluto as a leverage to the administrative complaint before the PRC. 3

Complainant then filed the instant case for disbarment against respondents. He alleged that Atty. Avila and his partners at APVLAW violated the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR when they assisted Dr. Maluto in filing the allegedly groundless, baseless and malicious complaint for libel. He averred that Atty. Avila knew that the above-mentioned libel case would not prosper and it was only designed to coerce, intimidate, and compel Organista into withdrawing the PRC administrative case against Dr. Maluto.

In its verified Answer, 4 dated January 24, 2011, APVLAW, represented by its partners during the time in question, Attys. Eldridge Marvin B. Aceron (Atty. Aceron), Stephen R. Vehemente and Noel R. Del Prado, denied the allegations and asserted that the disbarment complaint against them should be dismissed for failure to impute any specific act which they committed. They argued that the complaint only identified Atty. Avila and delineated his alleged acts. They denied that Atty. Avila owned APVLAW; in fact, its managing partner is Atty. Aceron. Further, they maintained that there was basis for the filing of the complaint for libel. Upon receipt of the January 13, 2010 resolution of the prosecutor's office dismissing the complaint, they resolved to forgo appealing the same in order to focus on the PRC administrative case. They alleged that this shows that they handled the matter in an objective and professional manner. Lastly, they argued that complainant is guilty of illegal practice of law because he represented Organista in the PRC administrative case even if he is not a lawyer.

In his Verified Answer, 5 dated February 14, 2011, Atty. Avila denied the allegations and asserted that the complaint should be dismissed against AVPLAW on the same grounds raised by his partners. He also argued that there was sufficient basis for the filing of the complaint for libel for the same reasons alleged by his partners. Further, he argued that assuming the PRC complaint is indeed covered by the doctrine of privileged communication, the same only removes the presumption of malice. Malice may still be proven through extrinsic evidence. Thus, such finding does not automatically exculpate complainant and Organista from criminal liability for libel. Lastly, he reiterated his partners' allegation that complainant is guilty of illegal practice of law. aScITE

In his Manifestation and Motion, 6 dated May 31, 2011, complainant asserted that respondents blatantly violated their oath when they admitted to having caused the filing of the complaint for libel. He insisted that the only thing left to do is to impose the proper penalties against respondents. He also stated that he is not guilty of illegal practice of law and that such allegation is a scheme on the part of respondents to obfuscate the issues.

In its Position Paper, 7 dated August 23, 2011, APVLAW raised the same grounds stated in its January 24, 2011 answer. They added that complainant and Organista are not covered by the mantle of qualified privilege since they were in bad faith in filing the letter-complaint with the PRC. Further, they alleged that the letter-complaint may still be the basis for the prosecution of the crime of libel since extrinsic evidence may be introduced to prove the element of malice. They reiterated their charge of illegal practice of law against complainant.

In his Position Paper, 8 dated September 30, 2011, Atty. Avila raised the same grounds stated in his February 14, 2011 answer. He also raised the same additional arguments as those of APVLAW.

Recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors

In its Report and Recommendation, 9 dated May 17, 2013, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) recommended the dismissal of the complaint. It noted that complainant failed to file his position paper. Thus, it concluded that complainant failed to submit any inculpating evidence against the respondents and recommended the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment against respondents.

In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-598, 10 dated September 27, 2014, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD, as follows:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws; and there being no evidence to support the Complaint, the case against Respondents is hereby DISMISSED. 11

On March 1, 2016, complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration 12 alleging that Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco verbally asked him during the mandatory conference if he was adopting his May 31, 2011 manifestation and motion as his position paper, to which complainant answered in the affirmative. Thus, the July 8, 2011 Order 13 states that "complainant further manifested that he does not have any intention to submit further documentary evidence and thereafter moved that the case be submitted for resolution." 14 He concluded that he had submitted sufficient evidence establishing respondents' violation of the Lawyer's Oath and canons of the CPR.

In their Comment/Opposition, 15 respondents argue that the grounds relied upon by complainant in his motion for reconsideration lack merit to grant the reversal of the resolution dismissing the complaint for disbarment. They asserted that lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the burden rests on complainant to prove his/her allegations by preponderance of evidence. Lastly, they reiterated the arguments they previously raised.

In its Resolution, 16 dated April 19, 2017, the IBP-Board of Governors denied the motion for reconsideration for failure to present new reasons or arguments that would justify a reversal of its earlier decision, thus:

RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors. 17

The Ruling of the Court

The Court notes the recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors. The Court resolves to dismiss the complaint against respondents due to lack of merit.

At the outset, the Court emphasizes that complainant's mere failure to file a position paper does not merit the outright dismissal of the complaint. The July 8, 2011 order of the Commission expressly states that "x x x complainant further manifested that he does not have any intention to submit further documentary evidence and thereafter moved that the case be submitted for resolution." Further, complainant's assertion that he adopted his May 31, 2011 manifestation and motion as his position paper is not controverted by respondents. As such, the Commission could have resolved the complaint on its merits instead of dismissing it due to complainant's alleged failure to file a position paper. In fact, in Enriquez v. De Vera, 18 both parties failed to file their position paper and yet the Commission proceeded to resolve the case on its merits and ultimately recommended that Atty. De Vera be held administratively liable for serious misconduct and recommended the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law. 19 HEITAD

The Court will now proceed to resolve the complaint on its merits.

Complainant alleged that respondents violated the Lawyer's Oath; Canon 1, Rules 1.02 and 1.03; Canon 15, Rule 15.04; and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the CPR when they assisted Dr. Maluto in filing the purportedly groundless, baseless and malicious complaint for libel. He averred that Atty. Avila knew the above-mentioned libel case would not prosper and it was only designed to coerce, intimidate, and compel Organista into withdrawing the administrative case filed in the PRC against Dr. Maluto.

The pertinent provisions of the CPR are as follows:

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

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

RULE 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.

RULE 15.04 — A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.

CANON 19 — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

RULE 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Meanwhile, the Lawyer's Oath provides, among others, that a lawyer shall not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same.

Respondents Did Not Violate

Complainant failed to explain exactly how respondents violated Canon 1, Rule 1.02 and Canon 15, Rule 15.04 of the CPR. The complaint failed to allege, much less prove, any specific act of respondents in violation of these provisions. Accordingly, complainant's charge, unsupported by any evidence, is baseless. The Court rules that respondents did not violate these provisions of the CPR.

Respondents Did Not Violate the

The Court will discuss respondents' alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.03 and Canon 19 in light of Rule 19.01 as they appear to be related thereto or elements thereof.

Two elements are indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed to have violated Rule 19.01: (i) the filing, or threat of filing, a patently frivolous and meritless action or appeal, and (ii) the filing, or threat of filing, the action is intended to gain improper advantage in any case or proceeding. 20 Rule 19.01 is violated only when the criminal complaint filed or threatened to be filed is patently frivolous, meritless and clearly groundless and is aimed solely at gaining improper advantage. 21

In the instant case, complainant failed to establish that the criminal complaint for libel was patently frivolous, meritless and clearly groundless, and that it was filed to gain improper advantage in favor of Dr. Maluto.

First, the complaint for libel is not patently frivolous, meritless or clearly groundless. It sufficiently stated how all four elements of libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) were allegedly committed by complainant and Organista. It is replete with details on how the crime was allegedly committed. In fact, it did not rest on the presumption that every defamatory imputation is malicious. It alleged how malice may be inferred from certain circumstances. The fact that the complaint for libel was subsequently dismissed by the prosecutor does not, by itself, prove that it was patently frivolous, meritless, or clearly groundless. As the Court previously stated, "[w]e cannot expect and require x x x (or any lawyer for that matter) to be infallible in his judgment on the merit of every criminal charge he endorses to the prosecutor." 22

Second, complainant failed to prove that the complaint for libel was aimed solely at gaining improper advantage for Dr. Maluto in the PRC administrative case. His only allegation as to this matter is that the complaint for libel was labeled by the prosecutor "as a leverage to the administrative complaint." 23 This conclusion was made by mere inference, unsubstantiated by any specific evidence. The Court cannot presume that Dr. Maluto gained or stood to gain improper advantage to the detriment of complainant and Organista by the mere filing of the complaint for libel. After all, both the PRC administrative complaint against Dr. Maluto and the complaint for libel were eventually dismissed. 24 ATICcS

In fine, the Court dismisses the present complaint for lack of merit.

With regard to APVLAW's claim that complainant is guilty of illegal practice of law, the same is a separate matter which the Court cannot, in the interest of due process, consider and discuss in this resolution.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Rudyard A. Avila III and APVLAW is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.

2.Id. at 8-14.

3.Id. at 3.

4.Id. at 32-47.

5.Id. at 70-96.

6.Id. at 208-212.

7.Id. at 166-183.

8.Id. at 184-198.

9. Penned by Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III; id. at 203-204.

10.Id. at 201.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 205-207.

13.Id. at 213-214.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 217-233.

16.Id. at 237.

17.Id.

18. A.C. No. 8330 (Resolution), March 16, 2015.

19.Id.

20.Espina v. Chavez, A.C. No. 7250 (Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1448), April 20, 2015.

21.Id.

22.Supra note 20.

23.Supra note 1 at 18.

24.Id. at 103-105; Order, dated February 1, 2011, of the PRC dismissing the administrative complaint for lack of interest to prosecute with prejudice.