ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12039. April 18, 2018.]
FRANCIS R. YUSECO, JR., complainant,vs. ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA, ATTY. ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, ATTY. JENNIFER A. JIMENO-ATIENZA, AND ATTY. MARCH JEFFERSON M. FERNANDEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12039(Francis R. Yuseco, Jr. v. Atty. Nilo T. Divina, Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo, Atty. Jennifer A. Jimeno-Atienza, and Atty. March Jefferson M. Fernandez)
The instant administrative case stemmed from the Petition for Disbarment 1 dated January 6, 2015 of complainant Francis R. Yuseco, Jr. (complainant) charging respondents Atty. Nilo T. Divina, Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo, Atty. Jennifer A. Jimeno-Atienza, and Atty. March Jefferson M. Fernandez (respondents) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In his Petition, complainant alleged that respondents were the external counsels of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) in a Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of the Unitrust Development Bank (UDB), filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59, docketed as SP. No. M-6069. 2
According to complainant, respondents disobeyed the order of the Monetary Board in liquidating UDB by failing to notify its directors representing the majority stocks. Instead, the notifications were allegedly sent to wrong parties deliberately and maliciously. 3
Moreover, complainant averred that the petition filed by PDIC was, from the time of its filing, anchored on wilful deceit and perjury. According to complainant, the petition deceptively claimed that UDB was already insolvent as of January 4, 2002 and that the same lacks the following indispensable requirements to the court, to wit: (i) a detailed audit examination report from the examination and supervision department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas within 90 days from the date PDIC took over as Receiver of UDB indisputably proving that UDB was already insolvent; (ii) the audited Statement of Condition of UDB proving it to be insolvent; and (iii) receipt of the notification in writing to the Board of Directors representing the majority shareholders of UDB about the Monetary Board Resolution authorizing the PDIC to liquidate UDB. 4 ETHIDa
On January 7, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued its Order, 5 wherein respondents were ordered to submit their Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof.
In their Answer, 6 respondents maintained that they never employed any deceitful act in the conduct of their duty as external counsels of PDIC. Respondents insisted that the petition for assistance in the liquidation of UDB was filed based on the findings of the Monetary Board that it is "illiquid:" or "cannot continue in business without causing probable losses to its depositors and creditors." 7
Moreover, respondents argued that, as counsels for PDIC, they are expected to exert their best efforts in advocating their client's cause. Consequently, they invoked the provisions of the Central Bank Act and the PDIC Charter in the judicial pleadings filed before the liquidation court. Undeniably, the said provisions were invoked to forward PDIC's position. Thus, considering that the said provisions of law were invoked in the proper forum, the same is undeniably within the bounds of law. 8
Further, respondents alleged that complainant failed to offer any shred of evidence to support his accusations. In addition, the complaint failed to state clearly and concisely the facts complained of. In fact, respondents' claim that the arguments presented by complainant were merely a rehash of his various motions filed before the liquidation court. 9
IBP COMMISSIONER AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS'
On June 26, 2015, IBP Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles (Commissioner Robles) rendered his Report and Recommendation, 10 wherein he recommended for the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit.
In a Resolution 11 dated June 30, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of Commissioner Robles after finding the same to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws.
Aggrieved, complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 12
THE COURT'S RULING
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the recommendation of the IBP Commissioner and Board of Governors proper under the circumstances.
Time and again, this Court held that, in administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge. 13 Moreover, an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof. 14 In the present case, complainant failed to attribute clear and preponderant proof to show that respondents committed an infraction in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against them.
In Corazon T Reontoy v. Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, 15 the Court held that a lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights. As such, he has the authority to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his clients' cause. In the present case, this Court finds that no bad faith and malicious intention can be attributed to respondents in invoking the Central Bank Act and PDIC Charter in protecting UDB's rights.
Further, records show that the closure and liquidation of UDB was not the decision of the PDIC but by the Monetary Board in Resolutions dated January 4, 2002 16 and January 20, 2005. 17
Admittedly, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant failed to prove the alleged perjurious acts committed by the respondents in the performance of their duties as counsels for PDIC. The Recommendation and Report in part states:
While the petition for disbarment and its annexes were unnecessarily long in complainant's expositions concerning the supposed wrongs in Special Proceedings No. M-6069, the same were unfortunately short, if not mute, on the vital question of respondents' professional misconduct. For instance, the petition for disbarment and its annexes did not specify the acts of respondents Divina, Elamparo, Jimeno-Atienza and Fernandez, either individually or collectively, that may fairly be considered as deceitful and unprofessional, or in clear violation of their oath as lawyers. In a manner of speaking, there just isn't any rope to hang the respondents with. Complainant's disagreements, or differences of opinion, with the legal positions/maneuvers of the respondents do not necessarily provide the rope. 18
Indeed, there is no sufficient evidence presented to prove that respondents engaged in dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. There was no factual or legal basis, much less substantial ground to hold respondents administratively liable. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. 19 cSEDTC
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Nilo T. Divina, Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo, Atty. Jennifer A. Jimeno-Atienza, and Atty. March Jefferson M. Fernandez is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-631 dated June 30, 2015 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors which adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dated June 26, 2015 and dismissed the complaint finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws; and the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-855 dated March 1, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors which denied the complainant's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution No. XXI-2015-631 dated June 30, 2015 there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors, transmitted by letter dated February 6, 2018 of Director Marlou B. Ubano together with the records and the compact disc containing the PDF file of the case, are both NOTED.
SO ORDERED."Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-11.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 6.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id. at 52.
6.Id. at 53-71.
7.Id. at 63.
8.Id. at 67.
9.Id. at 68.
10.Id. at 359.
11.Id. at 357.
12.Id. at 360-367.
13.Tolentino v. Atty. Loyola, et al., 670 Phil. 50 (2011).
14.Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, 386 Phil. 440, 444 (2000).
15. 349 Phil. 1, 5 (1998).
16. Rollo, p. 91.
17. Id. at 94.
18. Id. at 436.
19. San Juan v. Venida, A.C. No. 11317, August 23, 2016, 801 SCRA 268, 276.