Tiu v. Capinpuyan

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9406. September 6, 2017.]

ANTONIO H. TIU, complainant,vs. ATTY. MERLITA S. CAPINPUYAN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 September 2017which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 9406: ANTONIO H. TIU, Complainant, v. ATTY. MERLITA S. CAPINPUYAN, Respondent.

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Antonio H. Tiu (complainant) against Atty. Merlita S. Capinpuyan (respondent) on the grounds of deceit, gross misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. HTcADC

On 28 November 2008, complainant and the other incorporators of Oroville Development Corporation entered into a Compromise Agreement partitioning the corporate assets among themselves. Apparently, the license of the corporation was revoked by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2003 for failure to submit the required documents since its incorporation. The Compromise Agreement was judicially approved on 3 December 2008, which approval became final and executory on 18 December 2008. Owing to the partition, complainant became the registered owner of six parcels of land located in Sitio Maitum, Barangay Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City.

On 31 May 2011, respondent and Mr. Atinodoro Asequia, City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City, allegedly asked for a meeting with complainant's son, Jordan G. Tiu. During their meeting in the afternoon of the same day, respondent allegedly represented to Jordan G. Tiu and Atty. Rexel M. Pacuribot, both representing complainant, that complainant's properties were registered in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. As proof, respondent showed a photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-69992. Respondent then allegedly told Jordan G. Tiu for the latter's family to reconvey the properties in exchange for her guarantee that the other properties of complainant would no longer be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657. Complainant alleges that the photocopy shown by respondent was spurious, considering that TCT No. T-69992 had long been cancelled. As basis, complainant cites the Resolution dated 15 April 1993 rendered by the Hon. Abeto A. Salcedo, Jr., Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Adjudication Board-Region X, declaring the disputed properties exempt from the coverage of the CARP. Hence, because of the misrepresentation committed by respondent against complainant, the latter now seeks the disbarment of the latter. 1

In her Answer dated 17 June 2012, 2 respondent admitted that she was then the Chief of the Legal Services Division of the DAR Provincial Office in Misamis Oriental. She refuted complainant's contention that TCT No. T-69992 was deemed cancelled pursuant to the Resolution dated 15 April 1993 granting the Petition for Exemption filed by the previous owner. Respondent argued that an attack against a title cannot be made collaterally, but must be filed in a direct proceeding. Respondent then cited the decision of the Court in DAR v. Oroville Development Corp., docketed as G.R. No. 170823, where the disputed properties were expressly declared within CARP coverage. The decision attained finality on 19 February 2008.

In his Comment 3 to respondent's Answer, complainant reiterated his allegations and arguments, and narrated in detail how respondent and her colleagues in the DAR Provincial Office were supposedly able to cause the subdivision of the properties without complainant's knowledge and consent.

According to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD), "[t]he allegations and evidence presented by the complainant failed to establish by clear preponderant evidence the fact that the respondent was moved by proclivities of fraud and deceit when she met with them and showed them the assailed certificate." 4 However, the IBP-CBD found inexcusable "respondent's act of having a meeting with the complainant's son and Atty. Pacuribot outside of her office at a coffee shop in a social setting to talk about an official DAR business." 5 In his Report and Recommendation dated 11 January 2014, 6 Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. thus found respondent administratively liable for gross misconduct and recommended a penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law: CAIHTE

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Merlita C. Capinpuyan be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for committing gross misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 7

For its part, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD's Report and Recommendation, but increased the recommended penalty to a one-year suspension. Resolution No. XXI-2015-239 dated 22 February 2015 thus reads:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. In view thereof, Atty. Merlita S. Capinpuyan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. 8

The Court disagrees. Jurisdiction over the disbarment complaint is not lodged with the IBP, but the Office of the Ombudsman.

No less than the Constitution vests the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative disciplinary authority to "investigate x x x any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient." 9 Consistent with this constitutional mandate, RA 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," provides for the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman to hold erring government officers or employees administratively liable, among others. Section 13 of RA 6770 thus reads:

Section 13. Mandate. — The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people.

Significantly, in the recent case of Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, 10 the Court made a jurisprudential survey of administrative cases against government lawyers and affirmed that administrative supervision over them is lodged with the Office of the Ombudsman, not the IBP, thus: aScITE

x x x. In Samson v Restrivera, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure. Consequently, acts or omissions of public officials relating to the performance of their functions as government officials are within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

In Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales, the Court held that the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties. In the present case, the allegations in Alicias' complaint against Atty. Macatangay, Atty. Zerna, Atty. Ronquillo, and Atty. Buenaflor, which include their (1) failure to evaluate CSC records; (2) failure to evaluate documentary evidence presented to the CSC; and (3) non-service of CSC Orders and Resolutions, all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their official duties as government lawyers working in the CSC. Hence, the IBP has no jurisdiction over Alicias' complaint. These are acts or omissions connected with their duties as government lawyers exercising official functions in the CSC and within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of their superior or the Office of the Ombudsman. (Citations omitted)

Here, complainant wants to hold respondent administratively liable for the latter's alleged act of misrepresentation involving a matter related to her official functions when she met with complainant's son and produced a photocopy of a spurious title. At the time, respondent was the Chief of the Legal Services Division of the DAR Provincial Office in Misamis Oriental. Respondent is certainly a government lawyer within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Atty. Merlita S. Capinpuyan is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for whatever appropriate action the Ombudsman may wish to take with respect to the possible administrative and criminal liability of respondent Atty. Merlita S. Capinpuyan. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 2-9.

2.Id. at 69-91.

3.Rollo (Vol. 2), pp. 3-33.

4.Id. at 207.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 197-208.

7.Id. at 208.

8.Id. at 195.

9. Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 13, par. (1).

10. A.C. No. 7478, 11 January 2017.