FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12970. May 14, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5226]
MA. CONCEPCION C. VELASCO AND MATH B. REBUSTES, complainants, vs.ATTY. AVERILL J. AMOR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12970 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5226] — (MA. CONCEPCION C. VELASCO and MATH B. REBUSTES, complainants v. ATTY. AVERILL J. AMOR, respondent). — Before us is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Ma. Concepcion C. Velasco (Velasco) and Math B. Rebustes (Rebustes) (collectively, complainants), against Atty. Averill J. Amor (Atty. Amor) for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his alleged unethical use of his profession by willfully and maliciously obstructing the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), in deceiving poor tenants and the public, and in harassing the hapless farmers. 2
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Complainants seek to hold Atty. Amor administratively liable for allegedly unethically using his profession to obstruct CARP implementation, deceive poor farmers and the public, and harass hapless farmers. 3
According to the complainants, they are tenants in the 100.0001-hectare landholding of Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. which was placed under CARP coverage on October 5, 1993. 4
The complainants alleged that Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., through Atty. Amor, filed harassment cases of theft against tenants when they harvested their sugarcanes in the last crop year, 2015-2016 despite full knowledge of the existence of tenancy relationship between the tenants and Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. which started in 1970s. The complainants are of the view that the filing of criminal cases against them was designed to drive them away from their tillage on the said landholding after they refused to believe Atty. Amor's deception that the decision of the Office of the President (OP) has already attained finality. 5
The complainants claimed that while the protest of Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. was still pending resolution before the OP, the tenants petitioned for a Provisional Lease Rental (PLR) before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas which was granted and implemented during the last crop year, 2015-2016. 6 They further maintained that Atty. Amor, despite full knowledge of the PLR, acting like an attack dog of Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., succeeded in filing not only criminal cases of theft against the harvesting tenants, the sugar central management, and the transient cane cutters. 7
The complainants are of the opinion that the filing of the ejectment case against Concepcion, who refused to join her grandmother, Virginia Solis (Virginia), who surrendered her tillage owing to her emergency medical needs, was intended to harass and drive her away from her tillage, an act which is an obstruction in the implementation of CARP. Concepcion asserted that she has been cultivating about half hectare of her grandmother's tillage in representation of her deceased mother and that she did not sign a waiver of her right but admitted that her grandmother and some of her children did so 8 because Atty. Amor deceived them into believing that the Exemption Order from the OP has already attained finality, which prompted the children of her grandmother to support their ailing mother's compelled position to sign a waiver of their right under the CARP.
The complainants also alleged that Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., with full knowledge on the part of Atty. Amor, has been employing armed goons to sow terror among the tenants and prevented poor tenants from using their right of way to the seashore adjacent to their respective tillage. 9
For the complainants, Atty. Amor, as a lawyer, violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that — "A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes." 10
Atty. Amor's position
Atty. Amor, in defense, alleged that Velasco is not a tenant of any portion of the Land owned by Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. 11 Her very own grandmother, Virginia, even stated in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that Concepcion is not a tenant and has no agrarian right over the subject parcel of land. 12
Based on the Certification issued by the MARO, the Notice of Coverage issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) over the landholding of Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. was dated October 5, 1993. 13 Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. filed an Application for Exclusion/Exemption in order to lift said Notice of Coverage and to exempt the entire parcel of land. 14 On June 10, 2008, the DAR issued an Order partially granting the Application from CARP Coverage. 15 Out of the 100.0001 hectares, 44.5 hectares thereof were exempted from the coverage. 16 A Motion for Reconsideration of the DAR Order was filed by Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. Consequently, in a DAR Resolution, the total area exempt from CARP Coverage was increased from 44.5 hectares to 54.5 hectares. 17
An appeal of DAR's Order and Resolution was filed by Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. before the OP. 18 On March 9, 2015, the OP promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
All told, this Office affirms the assailed Resolution of the DAR directing the lifting of the Notice of Coverage, and exempting from CARP, (a) the 4.5-hectare portion of subject landholding that has been validly reclassified for tourism purposes; and (b) the 10-hectare portion where appellant's fishpond lay. The said Resolution, however, is modified to augment the exemption of the undeveloped terrain with at least 18% slope from 40 hectares to 60 hectares.
Consequently, Survey Plan No. Psd-041008-076116 (AR), approved on 27 March 1995 certified to by municipal agrarian reform officer Manuel C. Vaso as found in the records, which has already identified and documented the subject landholding, shall be used as the basis in determining and delineating the exempted and non-exempted portions of the subject landholding as stated herein.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The 18 January 2010 of the Department of Agrarian Reform in DARCO Order No. EX(MR)-1001-009 is MODIFIED. Accordingly, a total of 74.5 hectares of the subject landholding covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-17064 in the name of appellant Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. is hereby declared EXEMPT from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, inclusive of the identified portions thereof actually, directly and exclusively used as pastureland.
SO ORDERED. 19
According to Atty. Amor, the Court of Appeals issued a certification on June 2, 2015 that no petition for review of OP's Decision was filed. 20
On June 29, 2015, almost four months after the Decision of the OP, an Omnibus Motion for Intervention and Reconsideration with Urgent Prayer to Conduct Fair and Truthful Ocular Inspection was filed before the OP by Damayan ng Magsasaka sa Lupain ng Manuel Uy-DAMMMBA, Inc., a group claiming to be tenants of the subject landholding of Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., praying for the reversal of the March 9, 2015 Decision of the OP. 21
Meanwhile, the MARO and Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), despite the OP Decision and the Certification issued by the CA, targeted the landholding for leasehold implementation. 22 The PARO issued an Implementation Order on September 11, 2015, which designated Central Azucarera De Don Pedro and Batangas Sugar Central, Inc. as the Millers. In the same Order, Leonardo C. Aguilar, Virginia B. Solis, Lino C. Macalalad, Jorge V. Elpozar, Damaso Rebustes, Dionisia Cabarrubia, Josefina P. Eleponga, Rodelio S. Limoico, and Vicente E. Umali were identified as tenants/lessees. The said Order placed an area of 33.4 hectares of the said parcel of land under the leasehold system. 23
Consequently, Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. instituted a petition for the cancellation and/or nullification of the said Implementation Order issued by the PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Batangas. 24 Despite summons and notices, only Virginia filed her Sinumpaang Sagot. The other adverse parties did not bother to file any answer or participate in the initial hearing of the petition. 25
The PARO filed an Answer to the petition. On November 27, 2015, the PARAD of Batangas promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered CANCELLING the Implementation Order dated September 11, 2015 and the Provincial Leasehold Contract issued to private respondents null and void, without prejudice to respondents right to payment of disturbance compensation, if any, which qualification shall be determined in a separate proceedings.
SO ORDERED. 26
Except for Virginia, the other parties filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The PARO likewise filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. filed a Comment and Opposition on the said motions. 27
On July 7, 2016, the PARAD of Batangas issued a Resolution, the dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged Decision dated 27 November 2015 is hereby SET ASIDE and the Petition is accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice. The Motion to Amend Provisional Lease Rental is likewise DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 28
Consequently, Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal and an Appeal Memorandum before the DARAB which remain pending to this date. 29
Atty. Amor admitted a number of criminal, civil, and agrarian cases were filed by Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. against Velasco and Rebustes, specifically criminal cases for theft against Velasco and Rebustes and a civil case for ejectment and damages against Velasco. While an agrarian case for the Maintenance of Peaceful Possession against Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. was filed by Velasco before the PARAD of Batangas. In all these cases, Atty. Amor acted as the counsel for Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. 30
In the said agrarian case filed by Concepcion against Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. the PARAD held:
Based on the foregoing discussion, this Office finds that the Petitioner [is] not a de jure tenant of Respondent on the 1/2 hectare portion of the land for failure to prove by substantial evidence the existence of consent and sharing of harvests. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 31
Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner
Investigating Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay recommended that the administrative complaint against Atty. Amor be dismissed for lack of merit. 32 He found that the complainants failed to show in a satisfactory manner the facts on which they based their claims. He further stated that the allegations of the complainants are vague and insufficient to establish the violation alleged. 33
Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Board of Governors
The Board of Governors approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in a Resolution dated October 12, 2019. 34
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether Atty. Amor is administratively liable.
Ruling of the Court
Time and again, this Court has reiterated that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. 35 By substantial evidence, it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 36 Moreover, the administrative case against Atty. Amor must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof to enable this Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. 37
Here, although the complainants averred that Atty. Amor violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he allegedly unethically used his profession as lawyer to deceive poor farmers and the public, harass hapless tenants, obstruct CARP implementation, 38 and had full knowledge that his client, Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. was employing armed goons to sow terror among the tenants and prevented poor tenants from using their right of way to the seashore adjacent to their respective tillage, 39 the fact that there is no specific factual allegations against Atty. Amor that constituent a violation was ever made by the complainants, is fatal to their case. More importantly, no clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to support such allegations was submitted by the complainants.
It must be stressed anew that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. 40 After all, basic is the rule that mere allegation is not equivalent to proof and charges based on mere suspicion, speculation or conclusion cannot be given credence. 41
Undeniably, the complainants failed to meet the quantum of proof to establish that he unethically used his profession and expertise in agrarian reform laws to deceive and harass tenants and farmers and obstruct CARP implementation in favor of his client, Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. In fact, the allegations of the complainants miserably failed to show the supposed violation committed by Atty. Amor. Without any competent proof of the complainants' allegations, this Court has no basis to sanction Atty. Amor.
Oft-repeated is the rule that "lawyers enjoy the legal presumption that they are innocent of the charges against them until proven otherwise — as officers of the court, they are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with their oath." 42 The presumption stands except when it is overcome by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of the lawyer's misconduct that disbarment or suspension should follow. 43
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Averill J. Amor for lack of merit and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 5.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 3.
6.Id. at 2-3.
7.Id. at 3.
8.Id. at 3-4.
9.Id. at 4.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 252.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 252-253.
20.Id. at 253.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 254.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 254-255.
29.Id. at 255.
30.Id.
31.Id. at 256.
32.Id. at 460.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 456.
35.Zara v. Atty. Joyas, A.C. No. 10994, June 10, 2019.
36.Id.
37.Id.
38.Rollo, p. 4.
39.Id.
40.Zara v. Atty. Joyas, supra.
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.Id.