THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7079. March 21, 2018.]
FELIX YAP, complainant,vs. ATTY. LEON G. MOYA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 7079 (Felix Yap v. Atty. Leon G. Moya, Jr.) — This resolves the Affidavit/Complaint 1 filed by Felix Yap (complainant) against Atty. Leon G. Moya, Jr. (respondent) for suspension and/or disbarment.
The Affidavit-Complaint
The complaint involved four (4) parcels of land owned by the Armilla Family: 1) Lot No. 6401 covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-14239 registered under the name Eliseo Armilla married to Julieta Armilla (Spouses Armilla); 2) Lot No. 6402 covered by OCT No. P-14242, registered under the name of Julieta Armilla; 3) Lot No. 6403 covered by OCT No. P-14241 under the name of their son, Gerry Armilla; and 4) Lot No. 6404 covered by OCT No. P-14240 registered under the name of their daughter Eliza Armilla (Armillas).
Complainant alleged that in June 1975, the four (4) parcels of land were the subject of a civil case before the Court of First Instance, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, docketed as Civil Case No. 879 for reconveyance with damages entitled Heirs of Andres Trongco v. Spouses Eliseo and Julieta Delina-Armilla and the Bureau of Lands; that the said case was dismissed on October 4, 1978; and that despite the order of dismissal, respondent, as counsel of Aquilino Trongco, Aniana Trongco-Montano and Leona Trongco-Perez (Trongcos), was able to file a Notice of Lis Pendens recorded as Entry No. 398180.
Complainant likewise claimed that on July 6, 1998, respondent filed DENR Claim No. 06-000254 in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) over the four (4) parcels of land entitled In the Matter of the Cancellation of F.P.A. No. 064527-124 (E-F-0611-123); F.P.A. No. 064527-123 (E-F-0911-125); F.P.A No. 064527-126 (E-F-0611-122) and F.P.A No. 064527-125 (E-F-0611-124), Aquilino Trongco, Leona Trongco-Perez and Aniana Trongco-Montano v. Eliseo Armilla, Gerry Armilla, Eliza Armilla and Julieta Armilla. On June 6, 2000, a Decision 2 was rendered ordering the institution of a cancellation and/or reversion proceedings by the Office of the Solicitor General against the issuance of the four (4) parcels of land to the Armillas. Consequently, the Armillas appealed before the Office of the Secretary of the DENR.
Complainant averred that during the pendency of the civil case and the DENR case, the spouses Armilla were jobless and had no visible means of income to proceed with the litigation so he agreed to shoulder all the expenses in the said cases, and in order to compensate him, the Armillas authorized him to sell the four (4) lots and subsequently executed a Special Power of Attorney in his favor and turned over the titles of the four (4) lots to him. He also asserted that respondent was very much interested with the subject lots and kept on calling him and asked him to surrender the titles to him because he had a buyer. In March 2003, respondent informed him that even if the DENR case was still pending, they could still settle the controversy between the Armillas and the Trongcos, whom respondent represents. Complainant and respondent talked about the sharing of the parties if the lots would be sold and agreed to a 60-40 ratio in favor of the Armillas. Complainant asserted that they further agreed that all the expenses for the transfer of the titles would be for the account of respondent's client. Hence, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, which was approved in a Decision 3 dated August 2, 2005. aScITE
Complainant further alleged that he was able to look for a buyer named Noel Tan and respondent's buyer was Luise Cordero; that after he executed the Deed of Sale in favor of Luise Cordero and Noel Tan, respondent demanded for the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement to give effect to the 60-40 sharing of the proceeds of the sale; that upon the request of the respondent, complainant turned over the titles of the properties for the processing of the transfer of the titles to the buyers; that he kept reminding and inquiring from respondent about the new titles of the buyers but the latter kept on assuring him that the titles were in his possession; that complainant was surprised when he learned that respondent and Atty. Philip Davao, the counsel of a certain Christian, a Swiss national, met and discussed the sale of a portion of Lot 6401; that Julieta was stunned when she found out that that the 4 titles of the lots were in respondent's possession; that respondent informed Julieta that the titles were turned-over to him by complainant after he was paid the amount of P300,000.00; that he tried to explain to the Armillas how the titles of the lots were transferred to respondent's possession and told them that he did not receive anything from him but they did not believe him.
Complainant alleged that respondent manipulated the sale of a portion of Lot 6401 to his prejudice; and that he lied when he told the Armillas that he received the amount of P300,000.00 in exchange for the four titles of the land.
The Comment
In his Comment, 4 respondent admitted that the four (4) parcels of land were the subject of a DENR case where he was the counsel of the Trongcos and that a notice of lis pendens was annotated at the back of the titles as a favorable decision was rendered in favor of his clients. He, however, denied that he was interested in the said lots and manipulated its sale. Respondent offered his version of the event as follows:
a. That it was the Complainant who came to my office sometime in the last week of March 2003, introducing himself to me as the attorney-in-fact of the Armilla family. According to the Complainant, he had an undisclosed buyer of the properties in dispute but he could not finalize the transaction because of my Notice of Lis Pendens at the back of the titles. Hence, he proposed to settle the DENR Case No. 5476, which was at that time pending on appeal with the Office of the Secretary of the DENR, Quezon City;
b. That Complainant proposed a 60/40 settlement of the case, 60 for the Armilla family and 40 for the Trongcos. I called up my clients, the Trongcos, and they agreed to settle the case at said 60/40 sharing. The Complainant volunteered to leave the original owner's duplicate copies of the four (4) titles covering the subject properties and a copy of his Special Power of Attorney at my office;
c. Before I could even confirm with the Armilla family the 60/40 proposed settlement by their Attorney-in-Fact, herein Complainant, I learned from my inquiry with the Office of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City that the Special Power of Attorney dated July 29, 1997 of the Complainant had already been revoked by the Armilla family last 13 March 2003. The Revocation of the Power of Attorney dated 13 March 2003 however was neither entered in the logbook of the Register of Deeds nor annotated at the back of the titles due to the failure of the Armilla family to present the original owner's duplicate copies of their titles. The photocopy of the covering letter dated 13 March 2003 with attached Revocation of Power of Attorney dated 13 March 2003, which was enclosed in the titles on file with the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Negros Occidental is hereto attached as Annex "C" and made an integral part hereof; HEITAD
d. That about a week after the Complainant came to my office, the Complainant called me that his buyer was ready to pay and that they had already drawn out the deed of sale but I informed him that I have inquired with the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Negros Occidental and I learned that his Special Power of Attorney had been revoked. I told him that he could no longer enter into any deed of sale of the properties and that I doubt if the Armilla family would honor his proposal to settle the subject DENR case with my clients. I further told the Petitioner that he should get the owner's duplicate copies of the titles in my office, return them to the Armilla family and find out why the Armilla family had revoked his authority;
e. That the Complainant was insistent that we go on with his proposition as he would take care of the Armilla family but I declined because it was already apparent that the Armilla family would not honor his acts as attorney-in-fact as the Armilla family had revoked the Complainant's authority last 13 March 2003 for reasons only known to them;
f. I have no knowledge whatsoever as to the money borrowed by the Complainant to (sic) a certain Noel Tan and neither had I asked any money from Petitioner nor took the obligation to transfer the titles to the alleged buyers of the Complainant, namely: Noel Tan and Luis Cordero and shoulder the transfer expenses, knowing that his Special Power of Attorney had been revoked by the Armilla family as early as 13 March 2003;
g. That I was not a privy to any transaction between the Complainant, Noel Tan and Luis Cordero as claimed by the Complainant. My office did not prepare any document regarding the said transaction;
h. Moreover, granting arguendo that there was a Deed of Sale executed between the Complainant, Noel Tan and Luis Cordero on March 11, 2003, the same could not be registered as the owners, the Armilla family, had already revoked the Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant on March 13, 2003 and I likewise confronted the Complainant of this fact;
i. Furthermore, I would not allow myself to be used in fraud of any person by the Complainant whose authority to negotiate the property for sale had already been revoked by the principals, the Armilla family, and who likewise have no authority to make a proposal for the settlement of the DENR Case No. 5476 in behalf of the Armilla family[.] 5
Respondent further denied withholding the possession of the four titles of the land. He claimed that the titles remained in his possession because complainant did not go back to his office after he was told that he could no longer negotiate the properties as his authority was already revoked and that respondent could not return it because he does not know the complete address and telephone number of complainant. Nonetheless, when Atty. Arnel Lapore, counsel of the Armillas, demanded for the return of the titles, he immediately turned it over to him on April 4, 2005. 6
In a Resolution 7 dated November 13, 2006, the Court resolved, among others, to refer the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. ATICcS
The Recommendation of the IBP
In its Report and Recommendation 8 dated July 22, 2016, the IBP — Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for utter lack of merit. It opined that the complainant failed to establish that respondent committed acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Lawyer's Oath.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2017-775 9 dated January 27, 2017, the IBP — Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Commission.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Commission.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. 10 In this case, the Court agrees with the Commission that complainant failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent committed an act violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the standards of honesty as provided for by the Code of Professional Responsibility which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against him. 11
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Leon G. Moya, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-13.
2.Id. at 15-20.
3.Id. at 25-29.
4.Id. at 63-75.
5.Id. at 67-69.
6.Id. at 70-71.
7.Id. at 102.
8.Id. at 269-270.
9.Id. at 267-268.
10. See Noriega v. Sison, 210 Phil. 236, 240 (1983).
11.Rudecon Management Corp., et al. v. Camacho, 480 Phil. 652, 660 (2004).