FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9597. September 11, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3834]
JOCELYN S. VELASCO, complainant, vs.ATTY. MIGUEL D. ANSALDO, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 11, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9597 [formerly CBD Case No. 13-3834] (Jocelyn S. Velasco v. Atty. Miguel D. Ansaldo, Jr.). — We resolve the complaint filed by Jocelyn S. Velasco (Velasco) against Atty. Miguel D. Ansaldo, Jr. (Atty. Ansaldo). In this case, We reiterate the rule that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Facts
Complainant Velasco is the daughter and heir of the late Trinidad Saguid Velasco and Cesar Reyes Velasco (Spouses Velasco). She filed a complaint accusing respondent Atty. Ansaldo of neglect of duty which allegedly prejudiced her parents' estate, and her rights as an heir. 1 She also alleged that respondent Atty. Ansaldo's neglect caused the estate great financial loss. 2
Records show that Jose J. Saguid, the executor of the estate of Spouses Velasco, executed a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing respondent Atty. Ansaldo to perform the following acts, to wit: 1) to file a petition in court for the reconstitution of all Torrens Title of all properties located at Gloria, and Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, or anywhere else located in the Philippines; 2) to act as legal counsel of the estate of the late Spouses Velasco, their children and successors-in-interest, and to perform such other acts as may be necessary to protect the hereditary and proprietary rights of the aforementioned deceased; 3) to open a joint account with Sofronio Saguid (Sofronio) for the estate of Spouses Velasco, to endorse, encash, withdraw from the said account jointly with Sofronio; and 4) to sign all documents and papers necessary to attain the above purposes. 3
In accordance with the SPA, complainant Velasco claimed that respondent Atty. Ansaldo allegedly received US$100.00 which shall be used to open a joint bank account with Sofronio, the administrator of her parents' estate. 4 According to complainant Velasco, respondent Atty. Ansaldo was supposed to deposit the profits from the harvests of the lands (which form part of the estate) in that joint account. 5
Later on, complainant Velasco allegedly discovered that respondent Atty. Ansaldo, without Jose Saguid's knowledge, notarized a Kasunduan between Sofronio and Ruben Ilagan involving the mortgage of a land which is supposedly part of Spouses Velasco's estate. She also claimed that no update of any transaction relating to the SPA was ever received from respondent Atty. Ansaldo. More, complainant Velasco averred that when she inquired about the status of the acts specified in the SPA, respondent Atty. Ansaldo gave her a negative response, yelled at her, and threw the folder containing the documents of Spouses Velasco's estate on the floor. 6
These instances prompted complainant Velasco to file a verified letter-complaint 7 against respondent Atty. Ansaldo.
In his comment, 8 respondent Atty. Ansaldo stated at the onset that he does not know complainant Velasco, and that he has no privity of contract, nor professional relationship, with her. 9 On the complaint's allegations, respondent Atty. Ansaldo argued that he only signed the SPA as a favor to Jose Saguid who also happened to be his high school contemporary. He claimed that Jose Saguid's request was merely to deter Sofronio from abusing his position as the administrator of the estate. Given this background, respondent Atty. Ansaldo said that he was of the honest belief that he was not expected to actually perform any of the acts in the SPA. 10
Respondent Atty. Ansaldo likewise denied having received any amount in relation to the SPA. 11 He also denied yelling at complainant Velasco and throwing the folder containing the documents of Spouses Velaco's estate. 12 On the contrary, he averred that it was complainant Velasco who did those acts against him in the presence of his clients. 13 With respect to the Kasunduan, while respondent Atty. Ansaldo admitted that he notarized it in good faith, he clarified that it did not suffer from any infirmities because it was within Sofronio's authority, as the administrator of the estate, to enter into an agreement concerning a property of the estate. 14 He therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit. 15
We noted respondent Atty. Ansaldo's comment, and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 16 The Commission on Bar Discipline directed the parties to appear for mandatory conference, 17 but only respondent Atty. Ansaldo appeared. 18 The mandatory conference was then deemed terminated, and the parties were required to file their respective verified position papers 10 days from receipt of the order, after which the case shall be deemed submitted for report and recommendation. 19 Only respondent Atty. Ansaldo filed his position paper. 20
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
In his Report and Recommendation dated January 12, 2016, 21 Commissioner Roland B. Beltran (Comm. Beltran) found that respondent Atty. Ansaldo violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he allowed his name and office to be used by Jose Saguid in a simulated SPA. 22 According to Comm. Beltran, the lawyer's oath requires respondent Atty. Ansaldo to "x x x do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of (sic) any court"; and the CPR mandates that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." 23 He stated that respondent Atty. Ansaldo should not have allowed his name to be used in a simulated SPA. Further, the fact that respondent Atty. Ansaldo notarized the Kasunduan negates his claim that he was included in the SPA for the mere purpose of deterring Sofronio from abusing his position. 24 Comm. Beltran noted that this is respondent Atty. Ansaldo's first offense, and therefore credited this mitigating circumstance in his recommended penalty of one-month suspension from the practice of law. 25
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-529 dated September 24, 2016, 26 the IBP Board reversed the recommendations of Comm. Beltran, and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The National Director of the Commission of Bar Discipline was directed to prepare an extended resolution to explain the Board's action. 27
In the extended resolution, 28 the IBP Board held that as a lawyer, respondent Atty. Ansaldo was aware that the preparation of the SPA had legal consequences. Thus, he cannot escape his obligations by merely alleging that he signed it to accommodate Jose Saguid's request. 29 However, the IBP Board found that while respondent Atty. Ansaldo is bound by the SPA, complainant Velasco failed to prove that he was remiss in his duties as the attorney-in-fact of Spouses Velasco's estate. 30 It held that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, 31 and that preponderance of evidence is necessary before a lawyer may be administratively liable. 32
Particularly, the IBP Board found that "[i]n this case, Velasco failed to adduce evidence to prove her allegations that Atty. Ansaldo: (a) received the amount of US$100.00; (b) was remiss in his duties as supposed counsel of Spouses Velasco's estate in notarizing the Kasunduan entered into by Sofronio; and (c) failed to immediately file the petition for reconstitution of the titles over the properties which form part of the Spouses Velasco's estate." 33 Thus, for failure of complainant Velasco to adduce evidence, the IBP Board recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent Atty. Ansaldo. 34
We concur with the IBP Board in finding that respondent Atty. Ansaldo is bound by the SPA, despite his insistence that he merely signed to accommodate Jose Saguid's request. As a lawyer, he ought to know all the legal effects of signing an SPA, or any document which creates any obligation for that matter. We take exception however, to the IBP Board's finding that there is no proof that respondent Atty. Ansaldo was remiss in his duties under the SPA. In his comment and in his position paper, respondent Atty. Ansaldo admitted that "he did not perform any of the acts specified in the said SPA, but his failure to do so was borne not by intentional omission or neglect but simply because of his honest belief that he was not really required by Mr. Jose Saguid to do so." 35 Failure to perform his duties under the SPA is a violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
Complainant Velasco nevertheless failed to prove her other allegations that respondent Atty. Ansaldo received US$100.00, or that she suffered damages because of respondent Atty. Ansaldo's negligence. In Advinculav. Macabata, 36 We held that a censure or reprimand is imposed on an erring lawyer for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature or some minor infraction of his or her duty to the court or the client. 37 Under the facts of this case, We find that a reprimand is sufficient penalty for respondent Atty. Ansaldo.
WHEREFORE, the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-529 dated September 24, 2016 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Considering that the findings of fact of the Investigating Commissioner in the attached Report and Recommendation dated January 12, 2016, are supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court REINSTATES these findings with the MODIFICATION as to the recommended penalty in that respondent Atty. Miguel D. Ansaldo, Jr. is hereby REPRIMANDED for failing to comply with Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent's personal records with the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2.Id.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Rollo, pp. 6-12.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id. at 7.
11.Id.
12.Rollo, p. 10.
13.Id.
14.Rollo, p. 8.
15.Id. at 11.
16.Id. at 17.
17.Id. at 20, 22.
18.Id. at 25.
19.Id.
20.Rollo, pp. 27-37.
21.Id. at 45-51.
22.Id. at 49.
23.Id. at 50.
24.Id.
25.Rollo, pp. 50-51.
26.Id. at 52.
27.Id. at 43.
28.Id. at 52-62.
29.Id. at 57.
30.Id.
31.Rollo, p. 58, citing Francia v. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 347.
32.Id., citing Aba v. Attys. De Guzman, Jr., Trinidad and Fornier, A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361.
33.Id. at 58-61.
34.Id. at 61.
35.Id. at 7, 28-29.
36. A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 600.
37.Id. at 617.