THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11869. February 21, 2018.][Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4418]
HELEN B. SANUCO, complainant,vs. ATTY. JESUS JOHN B. GARMA, 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. 11869 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4418] (Helen B. Sanuco v. Atty. Jesus John B. Garma). — In her verified Complaint 1 filed on November 24, 2014 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) — Commission on Bar Discipline, Helen B. Sanuco (complainant) charged Atty. Jesus John B. Garma (respondent) with violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
Complainant alleged that she is one of the heirs of the late Serapio Banguilan (Banguilan), the registered owner of a parcel of land with Lot No. 4523, covered by Homestead Patent Entry No. 61170 situated in Barangay Lanna, Tumauini, Isabela, with an area of 24 hectares (subject land). She also alleged that the Heirs of Gregorio Manalo (Heirs of Manalo), respondent's clients, were able to secure another spurious free patent over the same subject land. Complainant asserted that the Heirs of Manalo knew that the said land was already adjudicated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in favor of Banguilan in its decisions dated December 10, 1979 and September 26, 1989, respectively.
Complainant averred that in 1997, the Heirs of Manalo wrongly filed a petition for quieting of title in the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela (RTC) docketed as Civil Case No. 22-773. Subsequently, respondent substituted as the counsel of the Heirs of Manalo and he acquired the various documents which purportedly established the illegality of their free patent. Complainant concluded that respondent miserably failed to inform his clients that they are pursuing an illegal cause, which is a violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
In his Answer, 2 respondent categorically denied the allegations against him and that the charge was baseless, patently false and intended only to harass him. He countered that the Heirs of Manalo originally filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages before the RTC on March 13, 1996 because they acquired a validly obtained free patent over the subject land on December 5, 1995 from the DENR. He then entered his appearance as counsel of the Heirs of Manalo on May 22, 2002. Respondent underscored that he has no knowledge of any fraud or machinations in the issuance of the said title and that his actions were all in accordance with his oath as a lawyer.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 3 the Investigating Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay (investigating commissioner) found that the complaint lacks merit. He observed that complainant failed to support her allegations to justify the imposition of an administrative penalty against respondent. The investigating commissioner also found that the acts of respondent were done in good faith and only to support his client's cause of action without violating his oath as a lawyer. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-606, 4 the Board of Governors of the IBP (IBP Board) adopted the findings of the investigating commissioner dismissing the complaint.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the investigating commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP Board.
It is a well-established rule that for a charge to warrant a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the presumption that the lawyer is innocent of the charge prevails. 5
In this case, aside from the bare allegations of complainant, she did not present any convincing proof that respondent maliciously knew that the free patent of his clients were spurious and that he failed to inform them of such fact. On the contrary, respondent proved that when the complaint of his clients was filed on March 13, 1996, the DENR had already issued a free patent in their favor on December 5, 1995. Thus, when respondent accepted the case on May 22, 2002, he had valid reason to presume that there was a proper and existing title in favor of his clients. The actions of respondent were all in accordance with his oath as a lawyer.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved. The complaint against Atty. Jesus John B. Garma is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 37-40.
3.Id. at 324-326.
4.Id. at 322.
5.Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-633 (2004).