THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11906. April 25, 2018.]
SPOUSES MANUELITO A. TAN AND RODELIA B. TAN, complainants,vs. ATTY. JOHN PAUL D. NIONES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 25, 2018, which reads as follows: aDSIHc
"A.C. No. 11906 (Spouses Manuelito A. Tan and Rodelia B. Tan, complainants, v. Atty. John Paul D. Niones, respondent) — Before the Court is a Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment filed by complainant Spouses Manuelito and Rodelia Tan (complainants) against respondent Atty. John Paul D. Niones (respondent) for alleged violation of Republic Acts (R.A.) No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009); No. 10627 (Anti-Bullying Act of 2013), and No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for slander in deed. 1
Respondent is a resident at Magnolia Place Condominium Corporation (MPCC) property and, at the time in question, was the president of the Homeowners Group in Azalea Building, one of the twelve mid-rise buildings in MPCC. He is also a Member of the Board of the Magnolia Place Homeowners' Association and Head of its Legal Committee. 2
The events leading to the present complaint were summarized by Investigating Commissioner Eldrin C. Antiquiera (Investigating Commissioner Antiquiera) as follows:
Parties are all residents of Magnolia Place Condominiums located at Brgy. Talipapa, Quezon City.
Complainants' minor son, Kim Harvey Tan, was allegedly involved in a string of "robbery" cases at Magnolia Place Condominiums. In one case, an alleged robbery took place at the condominium unit of a certain Ms. Hagia Chiappiazzi. She claimed that "somebody" entered the window of her kitchen where half of his body was inside. She shouted at the person "What are you doing?" but the kid run faster. Said entry was shown on the Information Report of the Magnolia Residences dated March 9, 2014.
That on March 11, 2014, another "robbery" [incident] involving the complainants' son and Mr. Onofre Valdez happened. Prompted by this incident, respondent who is [a] Member of the Board of the Magnolia Place Homeowners' Association and its Legal Officer, accompanied Mr. Onofre to blotter the [incident] with the police authorities and they also dropped by the condominium unit of complainants to talk to the latter's son. According to complainants, respondent and Mr. Onofre took [turns in] berating their minor son[,] in clear disregard of the law and accepted procedure governing complaints of such nature. The same was vehemently denied by respondent.
Likewise, complainants alleged that respondent posted the photo of complainants' son on Facebook and wrote the words "14 y/o lang, eto pic ng magnanakaw." Complainants claimed that the collective acts of respondent have effectively trampled on the rights and dignity of their minor child. 3
Respondent counters that the acts maliciously imputed against him are outright lies not supported by substantial evidence.
Anent the charge that respondent took part in berating complainants' son, respondent answers that no less than the head of the security guards of MPCC, Security Officer Alexander Paguio (Security Officer Paguio), who was inside complainants' unit during the time in question, attested that respondent did not act improperly during the alleged incident. In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Security Officer Paguio stated:
29. Hindi din totoo na nagtaas ng boses kay Kim Harvey o kahit kanino mang tao si Atty. Niones o Sir Jeff noong pumunta sila sa Unit 405 Tulip noong gabi ng 11 March 2014. Ang katotohanan ay napaka malumanay magsalita ni Atty. Niones at ang sabi lamang niya kay Kim Harvey matapos nito ilahad ang mga pangyayari ay, "Harvey, mag sorry ka lang kay Kuya Val mo at papatawarin ka naman niya. Wala naman siya mapapala kung kakasuhan ka niya. Ang gusto lamang niya ay isoli mo sa kanya ang susi na sinabi mo na itinago mo sa Azalea. Wala naman kasing nakita yung janitor na susi doon dahil kung moron, ituturn-over kagad yun sa Security Office." Minsan lamang nagtanong si Atty. Niones at ito ay nung tinanong niya kung nasaan yung dalawang lalaki. Madalas ay hindi nagtutugma ang mga sinasabi ni Kim Harvey kaya [ipinapaliwanag] lamang ni Atty. Niones kung bakit hindi nag tutugma at imposibleng mangyari ang mga ito. Kung mayroon mang nagtaas ng boses o sumigaw kay Kim Harvey ay si Dennis Chan iyon. Nang dumating kami sa Unit 405 ay kasunod na dumating din sa nasabing unit si Dennis Chan na residente din ng Tulip Building;
xxx xxx xxx
31. Hindi din dinuro-duro ni Atty. Niones at Sir Jeff si Kim Harvey. Sa katunayan ay nasa kaliwa at bandang likod ako ni Atty. Niones kaya nakita ko ang dalawang kamay niya ay nasa likod lamang niya at magkahawak habang nasa loob kami ng unit nila Mr. and Mrs. Tan. Kahit nagsasalita si Atty. Niones ay nasa likod pa din niya ang kanyang dalawang kamay kaya hindi totoo na dinuro duro niya si Kim Harvey;
xxx xxx xxx
36. Hindi din totoo ang nakasaad sa Salaysay ni Mrs. Tan na nagsitaasan ang boses ng mga suspek, na pinagalitan nila o pinaratangan na magnanakaw si Kim Harvey. Ang tao lamang na nagtaas ng boses nang gabing [iyon] ay si Mr. Dennis Chan habang sinasabi niya kay Kim Harvey na "Harvey, umamin ka na!!! Para mo na akong tatay!!" ng paulit-ulit;
37. Hindi din totoo na umiyak si Kim Harvey ng gabing puntahan siya at kausapin nila Mr. Valdez, Atty. Niones at Sir Jeff. Nakatingin ako kay Kim Harvey simula ng umupo siya sa sofa at nagsimulang mag kwento hanggang sa umalis ng Unit 405 Tulip sila Mr. Valdez, Atty. Niones at Sir Jeff. Ang katotohanan ay nakayuko lamang buong gabi si Kim Harvey habang [nagkukwento] at tumitingin lamang kapag nahuhuli siyang nagsisinungaling. Nakataas pa nga ang kanang paa niya sa sofa na parang walang nangyari. Hindi din totoo na umiyak si Mrs. Tan noong gabi na iyon. Samantalang si Mr. Tan naman ay pumasok na lamang sa loob ng kwarto. ETHIDa
38. Hindi din totoo ang paratang kay Atty. Niones na nagtaas ito ng boses, dinuro duro, pinagalitan, sinabihan na magnanakaw at ipapakulong si Kim Harvey. Ang katotohanan ay laging nahuhuli ni Atty. Niones kapag nagsisinungaling si Kim Harvey sa kanyang paglalahad ng mga pangyayari. Sinasabi lamang at ipinapaliwanag ni Atty. Niones kung bakit imposibleng mangyari ang ibang kinekwento ni Kim Harvey. Isa pang kasinungalingan ang sinasabi ni Mrs. Tan sa kanyang [complaint] na tinawanan o pasimpleng pinagtatawanan ni Atty. Niones at Sir Jeff si Kim Harvey. Ang katotohanan ay seryoso silang lahat ng mga oras na iyon; 4
xxx xxx xxx
As to the charge that respondent authored two (2) Facebook posts against complainants' son, respondent answers that complainants failed to create a connection between respondent and the fake and fabricated Facebook posts being attributed to him. Respondent explains:
Complainants claimed that Respondent made two (2) Facebook posts, the first one was allegedly posted in the Facebook Group of Magnolia Place by an account purporting to be one Paulo D. Niones. In support thereof, the Complainants attached an alleged print out of the said post in their Verified Complaint filed with this Honorable Commission. However, a close scrutiny of the said print out would readily show that the person appearing in the profile picture of the said Facebook account is not even herein Respondent but a girl. Surprisingly, the said print out does not even show the link of the said post so that the same could be traced and even verified if the same really existed. To clear and dispel any doubt that the said Facebook post is not made by or even attributable to herein Respondent, a perusal of the date the said post was allegedly made, if true, would show that the same was posted on "March 10 at 11:11 pm near Sauyo." As Respondent pointed out in his Verified Answer, he became aware of the burglary or break-in in Magnolia Place only on 11 March 2014 when he was informed by Mr. Valdez over the phone that morning around 9 o'clock as can be gleaned in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay of Mr. Valdez. It was therefore impossible for the Respondent to have made the said post. He cannot travel back in time. Moreover, herein Respondent does not even reside or stay anywhere near Sauyo which is several kilometers away from Magnolia Place.
When it comes to the second Facebook post, Complainants' son, Kim Harvey, claimed in his Supplemental Affidavit that herein Respondent made a post in the latter's wall (timeline) where his (Kim Harvey['s]) picture was allegedly posted with a caption "magnanakaw" and averred that the link of the said Facebook account is "https://www.facebook.com/paulopalaboy" as shown by the print out attached to his Supplemental Affidavit. However and as Respondent clarified in his Verified Answer, the said link is not the link of his Facebook account. Respondent even checked the link alleged by Kim Harvey but the same is inexistent. The link of Respondent's Facebook account is and has always been "https://www.facebook.com/jpniones" since he joined Facebook on 12 February 2009 as may be gleaned from the annexes in his Verified Answer. Respondent has never deleted his Facebook account or created another. More importantly, once a Facebook user has set his link or username (e.g., https://www.facebook.com/jpniones), the same is already permanent and could no longer be changed. If there is/are other Facebook account/s purporting to be Paulo D. Niones, the same was/were created by persons who probably wanted to discredit or defame herein Respondent, or use the same to substantiate a case, criminal or administrative, he/she/they maliciously filed against said Respondent. 5
Investigating Commissioner Antiquiera recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. 6 This recommendation was adopted by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (BG-IBP). 7
After a review of the case, the Court resolves to dismiss the present complaint.
In Balistoy v. Bron, 8 the Court, citing Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., 9 reiterated that "[i]n disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof."
In the case at bar, complainants failed to prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence the veracity of their claims. On the contrary, respondent was able to rebut their allegations. He was able to present evidence that he did not berate nor act improperly towards complainants' son; and he was also able to show that the questioned Facebook posts could not be attributed to him.
Recently, the Court reiterated in Yagong v. Magno and Garcia, 10 that the power to disbar must always be exercised with caution. The Court held:
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges proffered against him until the contrary is proved, and that, as an officer of the court, he has performed his duties in accordance with his oath. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, this Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. 11
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the present complaint against Atty. John Paul D. Niones, and to consider this case CLOSED and TERMINATED. cSEDTC
The Court also NOTES the following: (a) Letter, dated 9 November 2017, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines transmitting the documents pertaining to this case; and (b) Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-705, dated 26 January 2017, of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2.Id. at 166.
3.Id. at 224-225.
4.Id. at 80-82.
5.Id. at 176-178.
6.Id. at 226.
7.Id. at 222.
8. 780 Phil. 780, 188 (2016).
9. 678 Phil. 588, 600 (2011).
10. A.C. No. 10333, 6 November 2017.
11.Id.