THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13227. July 13, 2022.]
NORMITA R. TURLA, complainant,vs. ATTY. ISAGANI Z. MAMARIL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 13, 2022, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13227 (Normita R. Turla v. Atty. Isagani Z. Mamaril). — This administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint 1 filed on August 2, 2017, at the instance of Normita R. Turla (complainant) against Atty. Isagani Z. Mamaril (respondent) before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for failure of respondent to pay the monthly amortization for the purchase of complainant's vehicle in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 2
The Antecedents
Complainant is the owner of a vehicle, specifically a silver metallic 2010 Toyota Vios with plate number NUQ 638 (subject car), after his son, Michael Angelo Turla, the registered owner, sold the same to her via a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Right. 3
On November 7, 2016, complainant sold conditionally the subject car to a certain Nora N. Ngan-Oy (Nora), a client of respondent, as evidenced by a Deed of Conditional Sale. 4
Complainant, thereafter, learned that Nora surrendered the subject car to a certain Josefa Kidpalos (Kidpalos), Nora's creditor, with whom she owes a sum of P200,000.00. This is the consideration offered by Nora so that Kidpalos would not file a case against her. 5
For continuous failure of Nora to make good her obligations to complainant, the latter was constrained to locate Nora. Complainant then learned that Nora was already incarcerated and that the subject car would be returned to her. 6
As a result, complainant prepared a Bilateral Rescission of a Deed of Conditional Sale, 7 which was later signed by complainant and Nora. It was thereafter, notarized by respondent on February 15, 2017. 8 Complainant, later on, recovered the subject property.
A few days, thereafter, respondent offered to assume the responsibility of his client. 9 On February 23, 2017, complainant and respondent executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of Motor Vehicle, 10 wherein complainant agreed to sell the subject car to respondent in the amount of P300,000.00, payable in this manner: P20,000.00 down payment and the remaining P280,000.00 shall be payable in 15 equal monthly installments. 11
Like his client Nora, respondent failed to pay the monthly installments when they fell due despite having taken possession of the subject property. Respondent refused and was continuously refusing to communicate with complainant. Respondent had not answered complainant's text messages or calls. 12 Complainant was, thus, constrained to file the instant complaint for disbarment against respondent.
Despite notice, respondent failed to file his answer to the complaint. 13
The case was, thereafter, set for Mandatory Conference 14 on November 15, 2019. Only complainant, however, attended the Mandatory Conference. Respondent failed to appear. 15 The CBD then instructed the parties to file their respective position papers. Again, only complainant submitted a position paper. 16 Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for resolution/recommendation.
IBP Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
In its Report and Recommendation 17 dated June 4, 2020, the IBP-CBD found respondent administratively liable for failure to fulfill his obligations to complainant under the Deed of Conditional Sale which both of them voluntarily entered. It concluded that due to his failure to comply with his obligation, respondent failed to maintain the standard of legal proficiency and of morality expected of him as an agent of justice in violation of the CPR, particularly Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which demands that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." 18 It recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, to wit:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned investigating commissioner respectfully recommends that the respondent be meted with ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION from the practice of law for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This 4th day of June 2020, Pasig City, Philippines. 19
IBP Board of Governor's Ruling
In the Notice of Resolution 20 dated October 24, 2020, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, with modification. The IBP-Board of Governors, in addition to the suspension imposed, prescribed upon respondent a fine in the amount of P15,000.00 for his failure to file an answer to the complaint and position paper, and failure to attend the Mandatory Conference.
The Court's Ruling
After a careful review of the arguments of complainant, vis-à-vis the report of the IBP-CBD, this Court concurs with the findings of the IBP-CBD, as affirmed with modification by the IBP Board of Governors.
At the outset, the following facts remain undisputed: (1) respondent bought the subject car from complainant for P300,000.00 on an installment basis; 21 (2) after paying the down payment of P20,000.00, respondent took possession of the car; (3) when the monthly amortizations became due, respondent failed to settle his obligations; (4) complainant tried to communicate with and demand payment from respondent but the latter could no longer be found; 22 (5) up to date, respondent has yet to respond to the demands of complainant and settle his obligations.
The established facts speak for itself. Respondent evaded payment of a just and demandable debt. Despite having taken possession of the subject car after payment of a meager amount of P20,000.00 as a down payment, he failed and continuously fails to comply with his financial obligations. In so doing, We agree with the IBP-CBD that respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which states:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In a plethora of cases, We have emphasized that any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. 23 As a lawyer and an officer of the court, respondent is expected to act with the highest degree of integrity and fair dealing. He should maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. He must, at all times, perform his duties faithfully to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. 24
We, therefore, conclude that respondent may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. This is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the bar. It bears stressing that a lawyer's professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. Needless to state, respondent's failure to pay complainant and his continuous effort to evade payment of the full purchase price of the car despite taking possession thereof was deliberate. Thus, this implies wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. Respondent undeniably engaged in improper or wrongful conduct and violated the mandate that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." 25
From all the foregoing, this Court agrees with the findings of the IBP-CBD and the Board of Governors that respondent violated the CPR when he failed and continuously fails to pay a due and demandable debt to complainant. A one-year suspension from the practice of law is, likewise, commensurate to the infraction committed by respondent.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, Atty. Isagani Z. Mamaril is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty. He is DIRECTED to immediately manifest to the Court the date that he has commenced to serve his suspension, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered her appearance as counsel.
Atty. Isagani Z. Mamaril is further ORDERED to immediately pay a FINE in the amount of P15,000.00 upon receipt of this Resolution for his failure to file an answer to the complaint and position paper, and failure to attend the Mandatory Conference.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2. Id. at 2.
3. Id. at 8.
4. Id. at 11-12.
5. Id. at 13.
6. Id. at 4.
7. Id. at 14-15.
8. Id. at 15.
9. Id. at 4.
10. Id. at 18-19.
11. Id. at 18.
12. Id. at 1.
13. Id. at 40.
14. Id. at 29-30.
15. Id. at 32.
16. Id. at 33-34.
17. Id. at 39-44; penned by Commissioner Vicente C. Andiano.
18. Id. at 43.
19. Id. at 44.
20. Id. at 37-38.
21. Id. at 18.
22. Id. at 1.
23. Villa v. Defensor-Velez, A.C. No. 12202, December 5, 2019.
24. Sps. Victory v. Atty. Mercado, 813 Phil. 592, 597-598 (2017).
25. Villa v. Defensor-Velez, supra (Citation omitted).