THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10864. January 13, 2016.]
AURELIO M. SIERRA, petitioner, vs. ATTY. REAN MAYO JAVIER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10864 (Aurelio M. Sierra v. Atty. Rean Mayo Javier). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-635 dated September 27, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case for having no sufficient evidence to support the charges; and
(2) the letter dated July 31, 2015 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case with information that no motion for reconsideration was filed.
A complaint for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility was filed against Atty. Rean Mayo Javier (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Acting upon the complaint, Investigating Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. submitted the following Report and Recommendation:
xxx xxx xxx
COMPLAINANT'S POSITION
This is an offshoot of CBD Case No. 08-2180 that was filed by complainant.
In the said complaint, respondent is one of the four respondents, and complainant is one of the three complainants.
Respondent, in his answer to the complaint in CBD Case No. 08-2180 alleged and clarified that he is the legal counsel for Alakor Corporation.
However, in the case of [Heirs of Esteban Sierra, et al. v. Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson, et al.], (Civil Case No. 07-8181) that is pending before Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition where he represented himself as counsel for a certain Alfredo Ramos.
On account thereof, it is complainant's contention that respondent committed dishonesty and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility[.]
Moreover, complainant asserts that respondent did not observe the proper conduct as a lawyer by not filing a formal notice of appearance in Civil Case No. 07-8181.
In sum, complainant assails respondent for violating Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RESPONDENT'S POSITION
Respondent contends that he did not commit any dishonesty.
In his Answer in CBD Case No. 08-2180, respondent asserts that he was just being accurate in averring that he is the legal counsel of Alakor Corporation and never did he deny that he is the counsel of Alfredo C. Ramos.
And by filing a Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 07-8181, respondent effectively entered his appearance as counsel for Alfredo C. Ramos. And he did not just barge in the said case; neither decorum nor protocol was disregarded by him.
Respondent contended that the court hearing the case found nothing amiss with the filing of the Motion to Dismiss.
When the complainant filed their comment to the Motion to Dismiss there was no mention of what complainant alleged in the case at bar to be an illegal act of filing a Motion to Dismiss without a prior notice of appearance.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
At issue before this Commission is whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This Commission answers in the negative. CAIHTE
A reading of respondent's Answer in CBD Case No. 08-2180 vis-à-vis his filing of a Motion to Dismiss in behalf of Alfredo C. Ramos in Civil Case No. 07-8181, this Commission is of the conclusion that respondent committed no dishonesty.
Respondent's Answer in CBD Case No. 08-2180 where he clarified that he is the legal counsel of Alakor Corporation is not rendered false by the Motion to Dismiss that respondent filed in Civil Case No. 07-8181 where he represented Alfredo C. Ramos. In fact, in the very same Answer, respondent did not deny the fact that he is [the] corporate counsel of Alfredo Ramos.
The clarification made by respondent does not amount to a denial that he is the corporate counsel of Alfredo C. Ramos; respondent merely explained and illuminated his admission.
Verily, in the Answer in CBD Case No. 08-2180 there is nothing that will show or tend to show that respondent misrepresented himself as not being the corporate lawyer of Al[f]redo C. Ramos.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Ibay, the H[i]gh Court has defined dishonesty as the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."
Anent respondent's Answer to the effect that he clarified that he is the legal counsel for Alakor Corporation, this Commission finds it difficult to see any disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud anyone; it neither sow confusion nor obfuscate matter.
To be blunt about it, [r]espondent's Answer in CBD Case No. 08-2180 where he clarified that he is the legal counsel of Alakor Corporation does not cause any prejudice to complainant. No wrong impression is created even in the light of the Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 07-8181.
On the issue of respondent's non-filing of a formal entry of appearance in Civil Case No. 07-8181, this Commission finds the charge as frivolous.
Indeed, this Commission agrees with respondent that [the] Motion to Dismiss he filed in Civil Case No. 07-8181 effectively enters his appearance in behalf of Alfredo C. Ramos; neither decorum nor protocol was breached by respondent in the filing of the Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No[.] 07-8181 sans a formal entry of appearance.
As held by the High Court in Aquino v. Villamar-Mangaoang, "the duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence."
Section 3(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that a person is presumed innocent of crime or wrongdoing.
As held in [I]n Re: De Guzman, "[a]n attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath."
In the present case, after careful study, this Commission finds no sufficient evidence to support complainant's claim of dishonesty and violation of [the] Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Commission is of the belief that the instant complaint was initiated possibly for the sake of harassing the respondent, either to vex him for taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No. 07-8181, to which, should not be countenanced.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against respondent Atty. Rean [ ] Mayo Javier be dismissed.
Pasig City, May 28, 2013. (Citations omitted.)
In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-635, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation finding that the complaint against respondent lacks merit there being no sufficient evidence to support it.
Finding the IBP recommendation to be in accord with law, the Court ADOPTS the same. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint against respondent Atty. Rean Mayo Javier for lack of merit.
Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court