THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12399. November 9, 2020.]
ATTY. DANNY F. VILLANUEVA, complainant,vs. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES AND ATTY. GEORGE G. PAGLINAWAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 9, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12399 (Atty. Danny F. Villanueva v. Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. George G. Paglinawan). — This Verified Complaint 1 for suspension and/or disbarment stemmed from the unlawful detainer case filed by the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) against defendants Lolita "Lottie" M. Hernandez, Felix Nathaniel "Angel" V. Manalo, et al. (collectively, defendants), before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 12 of Manila (unlawful detainer case). Herein complainant Atty. Danny F. Villanueva (Atty. Villanueva) and respondents Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles (Atty. Cruz-Angeles) and Atty. George Ahmed G. Paglinawan (Atty. Paglinawan), were the counsels of the opposing parties. 2
In order to obtain the signatures of their clients for the Answer, respondents Atty. Cruz-Angeles and Atty. Paglinawan proceeded to the residence of defendants in Tandang Sora Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, which is the same property subject of the unlawful detainer case. Respondents, however, were refused entry by the INC's security guards who were manning the gate. Due to their failure to secure the signatures of the defendants, respondents failed to file the Answer.
Instead, they filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion Ex-Parte3 with the Manila MeTC praying that: (a) the unsigned and unverified Answer be considered compliant with the requirements for the filing of the Answer; (b) in the alternative, the defendants be given 10 more days within which to file their signed and verified Answer; (c) a show cause order be issued against INC to explain why it should not be cited in contempt for its malicious actuations; (d) the INC be admonished and enjoined from doing any unfair acts to secure its advantage in the prosecution of the unlawful detainer case. 4
On the other hand, complainant Atty. Villanueva, as counsel for the INC, filed a Motion to Render Judgment in view of the defendants' failure to timely file their signed and verified Answer. 5
From then on, the opposing counsels filed numerous pleadings culminating in the filing of disbarment complaints against one another. 6 The instant disbarment complaint was filed by complainant Atty. Villanueva against respondents. Meanwhile, in AC No. 16-4967, Atty. Villanueva was one of the respondents in the disbarment complaint filed by Atty. Cruz-Angeles and Atty. Paglinawan. 7
In the instant case, Atty. Villanueva claims that respondent lawyers breached their Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when they made conflicting assertions in the Urgent Motion to Inhibit 8 and Urgent Manifestation and Motion Ex-Parte9 thereby making them guilty of committing falsehood. 10
Atty. Villanueva asserts that in the Urgent Manifestation and Motion Ex-Parte, respondents prayed that their attached unverified Answer be considered as filed or compliant with the filing of an Answer under the Rules of Court thereby acknowledging that the court has already acquired jurisdiction upon the persons of the defendants and the subject matter thereof. However, in their Urgent Motion to Inhibit, they argued that there was no valid service of summons upon the defendants hence the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. Complainant Atty. Villanueva points out that by making these conflicting assertions, respondents committed an act of falsehood and showed lack of candor in their dealings with the court and legal profession, a breach of their oaths as lawyers and the CPR. 11
Moreover, complainant also alleges that respondents used offensive language in their pleadings to wit:
"Plaintiff is shamelessly and barefacedly trying to sell these lies to the Honorable Court." 12
"Plaintiff and its (sic) counsel are bent on hiding the truth from the court and in the process of doing so, they filed their Motion to Render Judgment as a means of distraction from the truth. They cared not a bit that said motion was riddled with lies, chicanery and deceit." 13
"Not even their counsels are spared from, among other things, the humiliating and highhanded treatment suffered at the hands of the INC and their lackeys." 14
"If this proof is not enough, all one has to do is click to the YouTube website, which is replete with videos showing just how big a bully the INC and its hired held strong-armed the defendants and their agents, including their counsels." 15
"One can just imagine how awfully gung-ho Plaintiff's counsel could get if he was actually able to personally vouch for the evidence he relies on [in] his pleadings." 16
"Having brazenly lied to the court and having tried to deceive the court among other Dastardly acts done, [x x x]." 17
Report and Recommendation of
In a May 23, 2017 Report and Recommendation, 18 Investigating Commissioner Rogelio N. Wong recommended that the complaint against respondents be dismissed for lack of merit.
The Investigating Commissioner did not give credence to complainant's argument that respondents committed falsehood or manifested lack of candor in their dealings with the court, in breach of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR when they filed the Urgent Motion to Inhibit and the Urgent Manifestation and Motion Ex-Parte. The Investigating Commissioner found no evidence that respondents' conduct was willful and malicious as to deceive or manipulate the court and the complainant. 19
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner noted that entries in the subject Manifestation and Omnibus Motion and the alleged offensive statements were merely issued in response to an earlier similar imputations made by complainant against the respondents in their respective pleadings in the unlawful detainer case. 20
The Investigating Commissioner opined that:
Considering that the Complainant x x x made similar imputations x x x against the respondents in [his] pleadings, it could not be said that the complainant comes before this Commission with clean hands. Furthermore, the complaint is also wanting of substantive proof to establish [that respondents employed] deliberate and malicious falsehood x x x upon the court and upon the complainant x x x.
The rule in administrative proceedings is that the burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must be able to support and prove by substantial evidence his accusations against the respondent. Allegations per se are not proof. 21 (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
In its May 3, 2018 Resolution, 22 the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint.
Our Ruling
This Court adopts the findings of the IBP and approves its recommendation to dismiss the complaint against respondents Atty. Cruz-Angeles and Atty. Paglinawan.
Settled is the rule that in administrative cases, substantial evidence is the required quantum of evidence to support a claim. Thus, in Office of theOmbudsman v. Dechavez, 23 the Supreme Court pronounced:
In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. 24
In the instant case, We find that complainant's allegations against respondents did not meet the mandated quantum of evidence. Clearly, the statements made in their pleadings were merely responsive to the imputations that complainant likewise made against them. However, We remind the parties that "[i]n maintaining the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language — spoken or in his pleadings — must be dignified. As such, every lawyer is mandated to carry out his duty as an agent in the administration of justice with courtesy, dignity and respect not only towards his clients, the court and judicial officers, but equally towards his colleagues in the Legal Profession." 25
WHEREFORE, there being no substantial evidence to support the charge against Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. George Ahmed G. Paglinawan of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Complaint for Suspension and/or Disbarment against them is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2.Id. at 187.
3.Id.at 8-14.
4.Id. at 9.
5.Id. at 194.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 191.
8.Id. at 33-40.
9.Id. at 8-14.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id. at 4-6.
12.Id. at 189.
13.Id. at 190.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 187-200.
19.Id. at 197.
20.Id. at 198-199.
21.Id. at 199-200.
22.Id. at 185.
23. 721 Phil. 124 (2013).
24.Id. at 130.
25.Sanchez v. Aguilos, 783 Phil. 393, 408 (2016).