Valera, Jr. v. Basco

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9520. January 13, 2016.]

LEODEGARIO B. VALERA, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. JOAN P. BASCO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 13, 2016, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 9520 (Leodegario B. Valera, Jr. v. Atty. Joan P. Basco) — The Court resolves to NOTE:

(1) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-752 dated October 10, 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 lack of merit; and

(2) the letter dated September 18, 2015 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case with information that no motion for reconsideration has been filed.

Complainant Leodegario B. Valera, Jr. (complainant) filed before the Court an action for disbarment against Atty. Joan P. Basco (respondent).

After respondent filed his comment, as required in the Court's Resolution of September 3, 2012, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

After investigation, Investigating Commissioner Ricardo M. Espina submitted the following Report and Recommendation.

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

In a verified complaint, Complainant charged Respondent with violation of Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03 thereof. 1

At the time of filing of the complaint, Leodegario B. Valera, Jr. (complainant) is a Senior Operations Officer of Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation, Inc. (Quedancor). He held the position of President and Chairman of the Board of Quemas, an employees' association at Quedancor. He is also the General Manager of Quemas MPC, an employees' cooperative.

Atty. Joan P. Basco (respondent), on the other hand, is a lawyer by profession and an employee of Quedancor with the position of Division Chief (Salary Grade 24). His current designation is as Officer-in-Charge of the Legal Affairs Department, Quedancor.

II. STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT

Complainant alleged that there are two (2) Deed of Assignment of Real Property that transferred ownership over a property known as LiveCor Property from Livelihood Corporation ("LiveCor") to Quedancor — one not notarized but signed in 2006 and another, signed and belatedly notarized on 22 June 2012. Complainant further alleged that respondent, in conspiracy with other officers of Quedancor, committed falsification of public document when he intercalated and made false attributions in the deed to two (2) signatories thereat [Nelson C. Buenaflor ("Buenaflor") and Bernardo B.J. Mitra ("Mitra")], to wit: cHDAIS

a) making it appear that Buenaflor and Mitra signed the deed on 22 July 2012 when said signatories actually executed the document in 2006;

b) the Tax Identification Number ("TIN") attributed to the signatories at the Acknowledgment portion of the Deed was intercalated because the identifying document for the signatories in the 2006 deed was a Community Tax Certificate and not their TIN.

III. RESPONDENT'S POSITION/DEFENSE

For his defense, Respondent posits that he did not violate Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, in particular Rules 1.01 and 1.02 thereof, for the falsification of the Deed of Assignment of Real Property as attributed to him by complainant. Respondent argued that he was not the notary public in the subject Deed. The notary public is one Atty. Charlie V. Tumaru. Respondent also stated that there could have been no falsification because the signatories (Buenaflor and Mitra) admitted that the signatures appearing in the Deed notarized in 2012 is their authentic signature. Respondent also claimed that nowhere was it alleged in the complaint that he or other Quedancor officers were present when the Deed was notarized.

IV. ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL AND DECEITFUL CONDUCT (Rule 1.01), HAS ABETTED ACTIVITIES AIMED AT DEFIANCE OF THE LAW OR LESSENING CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM (Rule 1.02) OR HAS FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGED ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN'S CAUSE (Rule 1.03).

V. FINDINGS

Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.

Was complainant able to present clear preponderant proof that respondent lawyer committed falsification of public document in conspiracy with the other Quedancor officers[?] We find none.

Complainant relied on the following documents to prove the existence of respondent lawyer's conspiracy with other Quedancor officers in the alleged falsification:

Exh.	-	The deed of Assignment or Real Property notarized
"F"		on 22 June 2012 by Atty. Charlie Tumaru;
Exh.	-	Joint Affidavit of Nelson Buenaflor and Atty. Michael
"M"		Milares dated 28 November 2012;
Exhs.	-	BIR forms for capital gains tax and documentary
"G,"		stamp tax due on the Deed;
"G-1"
and
"G-2"
Exh.	-	Quedancor Disbursement Voucher No. 12070604
"H"		dated 04 July 2012 with notation "RUSH PLS!"
Exhs.	-	Quedancor documents on payment of notarial fee,
"I",		documentary stamp tax and memorandum informing
"I-1"		Quedancor employees of the sale of property.
to "I-5"

 

Of the twelve (12) exhibits presented by complainant, only Exhs. "H" and "1-4" contained respondent lawyer's signature. Even then, the documents are official documents which are signed by respondent in his official capacity. They enjoy the presumption of regularity absent clear preponderant evidence that respondent performed the signing of subject documents outside of his official function.

Curiously, complainant's claim that the notation "RUSH PLS" in Exh. "H" was respondent's doing is a mere allegation. Complainant failed to present proof that it was respondent who wrote the note "RUSH PLS." Since mere allegation is not evidence, the assertion cannot be given credence. ISHCcT

If directly, no proof of falsification can be pinned on respondent, was complainant able to present indirect proof that respondent conspired with other officers to commit falsification.

Conspiracy must be proven by proof separate from the criminal act itself. Stated for purposes of this case, the falsification charged should be proven to exist separate from the proof adduced to prove conspiracy (see People v. Natividad [G.R. No. 151072, Sept. 23, 2003 citing People v. Loreno, G.R. No. 130889, 06 June 2002; People v. Ferras, 351 Phil. 1020 (1998); People v. Maluenda, 351 Phil. 467 (1998); Dans, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 127073, 29 Jan. 1998, 285 SCRA 504]. 2

Taken collectively, Exhibits "F", "G", "I" and "M", all inclusive of submarkings, did not present proof that respondent conspired with the other officers in falsifying; Exh. "F". There can be no conspiracy to commit falsification — an indirect manner of pinning liability on respondent lawyer — when no administrative complaint was filed by complainant on the principal himself — notary public Charlie Tumaru.

Hence, we do not find Atty. Joan P. Basco liable for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03 thereof.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, finding the charges against Respondent Atty. Joan P. Basco to be without legal basis, it is hereby recommended that the case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

xxx xxx xxx

In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-752 dated October 10, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation dated January 13, 2014.

Finding the IBP recommendation to be in accord with law, the Court ADOPTS the same. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint against respondent Atty. Joan P. Basco for lack of merit.

Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. CANON I — 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.

Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

2. "Considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is required to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself."