SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9662. June 1, 2016.]
GEORGE J. TENERIFE, complainant, vs. ATTY. LITTIE SARAH A. AGDEPPA AND ATTY. MARYLYN B. FLAUTA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 June 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9662 — George J. Tenerife v. Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa and Atty. Marylyn B. Flauta
In his Affidavit-Complaint, 1 dated October 17, 2012, filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant, complainant George J. Tenerife (Tenerife) charged respondents Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa (Atty. Agdeppa) and Atty. Marylyn B. Flauta (Atty. Flauta) of committing grave felony, false declaration, and culpable violation of public trust.
Tenerife alleged that, on March 7, 2012, he filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of his sister, Rosario J. Tenerife (Rosario), before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Midsayap, North Cotabato (RTC), docketed as S.P. Proc. Case No. 12-009. He asserted therein that Rosario needed guardianship because she was sickly and bedridden. On June 17, 2012, Tenerife also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to secure the liberty of Rosario before the RTC, Midsayap, Cotabato, docketed as S.P. Proc. Case No. 12-018.
Rosario, however, through her counsel, Atty. Agdeppa, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for guardianship. The said motion was notarized by Atty. Flauta.
Tenerife claimed it was physically impossible for Rosario to read and sign the said motion because she was bedridden in his house. Thus, he asserted that Atty. Agdeppa and Atty. Flauta falsified the motion submitted before the RTC.
In her Comment, 2 Atty. Agdeppa argued that her services were contracted by Rosario to defend her in the guardianship and habeas corpus cases filed by Tenerife. She asserted that, on July 11, 2012, Rosario appeared and testified before the RTC that she was neither bedridden nor half-dead; that she was competent and capable to manage her own affairs; and that she had not been kidnapped or abducted. A copy of the Transcript of Stenograpics Notes of Rosario's testimony was attached to her answer.
In her Comments with Motion to Dismiss, 3 Atty. Flauta countered that Rosario was healthy, competent and sane because she (Rosario) was able to appear before her when she notarized the motion to dismiss the petition for guardianship. She echoed the defense of Atty. Agdeppa that Rosario's testimony before the RTC showed that she was truly capable to acquire their services.
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation, 4 dated January 20, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Ramsey M. Quijano (Investigating Commissioner) found that the complaint lacked merit. He observed that Tenerife's claim, that Rosario was incapable of engaging the services of the respondents due to her sickness, was contradicted when she herself testified before the RTC regarding her health and competence. Thus, the investigating commissioner concluded that Atty. Agdeppa and Atty. Flauta did not commit any falsification as Rosario competently employed their services. He disposed the complaint in this wise: TAIaHE
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the instant case be DISMISSED.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-258, 5 dated April 18, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the investigating commissioner's report 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," and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, and there being no evidence against Respondents, the Case is hereby DISMISSED.
Hence, the case was elevated to the Court.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation of the 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. 6
In this case, Tenerife alleged that Atty. Agdeppa and Atty. Flauta committed falsification because it was physically impossible for Rosario to engage their services as she was bedridden and half-dead. Glaringly, his accusation is immediately contradicted when it was proven that Rosario attended and testified before the RTC that she was healthy, competent and capable to manage her own affairs and she specifically contradicted his allegations. To the Court's mind, Rosario was healthy and fit, and her actions showed that she was truly capable of engaging the services of Atty. Agdeppa and Atty. Flauta to protect her interests.
Thus, the allegation of Rosario's sickness, to which Tenerife hinges his claim, is definitely invalidated. He did not present any other evidence to substantiate his accusation of falsification against the respondents in assisting Rosario. As correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, Tenerife failed to establish his charges with convincing proof.
WHEREFORE, The Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in his Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved. As there was no evidence against them, the complaint against Atty. Littie Sarah A. Agdeppa and Atty. Marylyn B. Flauta is DISMISSED. cDHAES
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.(Brion, J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-13.
2. Id. at 164-185.
3. Id. at 113-126.
4. Id. at 718-722.
5. Id. at 716.
6. Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-633 (2004).