SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12837. September 29, 2021.]
FLORANTE YUTRAGO, ET AL., complainants, vs. ATTY. JASPER M. LUCERO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12837 (Florante Yutrago, et al. v. Atty. Jasper M. Lucero). — This is an administrative case stemming from a letter-complaint 1 filed by Florante Yutrago, Arturo Modalo, Antonio Yutrago, and Ruben Signar (complainants) before the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) of the Supreme Court against Atty. Jasper M. Lucero (Atty. Lucero) for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Rules 1.01, 2 1.02, 3 15.04, 4 18.03, 5 18.04 6 and Canon 17, 7 praying that Atty. Lucero be disbarred from the practice of law and his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. 8
The Antecedents
On March 4, 2014, the OCJ received a letter-complaint for disbarment against Atty. Lucero. 9 The letter-complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 10
The complainants alleged that Atty. Lucero violated Canons 1, 15, 17, and 18 of the CPR when he, acting as their counsel, withdrew their Revocable Permit Applications with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Albuera, Leyte over a foreshore land with an area of more or less 2,643 square meters without their oral or written consent. 11
According to the complainants, they have been occupying the foreshore land in peaceful, open, continuous, uninterrupted and public possession for more than thirty (30) years. 12
For them, Atty. Lucero neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and caused dishonor to the legal profession through unfaithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and his clients. 13
On the other hand, Atty. Lucero, in his Answer 14 received by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on June 9, 2014, denied the allegations of the complainants and claimed that the same are malicious and false. 15 He averred that it was Carlito Amador (Amador) who approached him and referred the Revocable Permit Applications with the CENRO, DENR. 16 He explained that while the complainants' applications were pending, Amador came and asked him to file a Notice of Withdrawal of the applications which the CENRO immediately acted upon by issuing an order granting the same. 17
When Amador learned about the Order of the CENRO, he called Atty. Lucero and informed the latter that the notice of withdrawal only pertained to eight (8) applicants out of eighteen (18), namely: Recaa Amador, Jonathan Amador, Felipe Alcober, Maly Beltran, Argel Senoc, Joymie Liquegan, Ruperto Espina, and Luz Terrado. Four (4) of the ten (10) applicants excluded therefrom are herein complainants. 18 CAIHTE
Atty. Lucero then immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Reinstatement of Ten Revocable Permit Applications 19 on the ground of miscommunication with the representative. 20 The applications were set for hearing. 21 In the course of the hearings, the parties were able to settle the problem and agreed that protestant Estrella R. Purificacion (Purificacion), for a consideration, will execute a Deed of Absolute Sale and Contract of Sell 22 to the applicants. 23 Purificacion filed a Manifestation/Submission 24 before the CENRO of such fact.
Due to the Manifestation/Submission, Atty. Lucero filed a Motion to Dismiss the Protest. 25 Herein complainants, however, filed a Complaint in Intervention with Opposition to the Manifestation/Submission. 26 Atty. Lucero averred that complainants never communicated with him, nor did they file any contact numbers. 27 In addition, Atty. Lucero alleged that complainants knew of the Motion for Reconsideration and Reinstatement of Ten Revocable Permit Applications, as well as the Motion to Dismiss the Protest. 28 He claimed that the complainants knew well that he made everything in his ability to have their permit approved. 29
A Notice of Mandatory Conference 30 was received by the complainants on July 18, 2014. 31 Ten (10) days thereafter, the complainants filed a Motion for Postponement and Transfer of Venue 32 alleging that since Atty. Lucero failed to attach the annexes to his Answer, it would be impossible for them to submit their mandatory briefs to refute his allegations. 33 Moreover, they requested that the venue be transferred to Tacloban City or for the IBP Leyte Chapter to conduct the Mandatory Conference as they are pauper litigants who certainly cannot go to Pasig City. 34
On August 20, 2014, Atty. Lucero filed a Manifestation 35 stating that he attached all the annexes to this Answer but since complainants claimed that he did not, he re-sent the same to them. 36 Later, he filed his Mandatory Brief. 37
In an Order dated April 27, 2017, when the case was called for mandatory conference, only Atty. Lucero appeared. 38 Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera (Commissioner Antiquera) ruled that the mandatory conference is terminated and that both parties are required to submit their respective verified position papers together with documentary evidence and/or judicial affidavits of their respective witnesses. 39
On August 3, 2017, Atty. Lucero filed his Position Paper, 40 while complainants filed their Comment on September 4, 2017. 41 Both the Position Paper and the Continent to Position Paper reiterated the complainants' and Atty. Lucero's earlier allegations and arguments in their Letter-Complaint and Answer.
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
On December 5, 2017, Commissioner Antiquiera of the IBP CBD issued his Report and Recommendation. 42 He found Atty. Lucero liable for violation of Canon 17 in relation to Canon 18 of the CPR and recommended that Atty. Lucero be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. He held:
Under Canon 17 of the CPR, a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Equally important is Canon 18 which mandates of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. It is clearly indubitable that respondent, upon instruction of Carlito Amador, caused the withdrawal of all Revocable Permit Applications without first securing the written consent of the other applicants who happened to be his clients in the DENR case. Respondent ought to know that he cannot unilaterally compromise or withdraw his client's case without first securing a written consent from the latter. His act of unilaterally doing it, is no doubt, a violation of his duty of undivided fidelity and allegiance to the cause of his clients. Moreover, respondent's belated act of filing a motion for reconsideration and reinstatement of ten (10) revocable permit applications on the ground of alleged miscommunication with the client's alleged representative, will not exculpate him from liability. On the contrary, it only exposed his apparent negligence in handling his clients' applications with the DENR in violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. 43
Thus, he recommended:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that a penalty of ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION from the practice of law shall be imposed against the respondent.
Respectfully Submitted. 44
The IBP-Board of Governors Resolution
On June 29, 2018, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution 45 adopting with modification the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Antiquiera, thus:
CBD Case No. 14-4192Florante Yutrago, et al. vs.
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification, by lowering the recommended penalty of Suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year to a period of SIX (6) MONTHS considering that respondent was in good faith and he immediately corrected the mistake by filing a motion for reconsideration. 46
The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration 47 and argued that he did not violate Canons 17 and 18 when he merely followed the instruction of the applicants' attorney-in-fact to withdraw the Revocable Permit Applications. 48 He alleged that Amador was the attorney-in-fact of the applicants, including the complainants, 49 which bound the principals. 50 Since Amador instructed him to withdraw the applications, he, being their lawyer, immediately followed the instruction of their attorney-in-fact. 51 To prove his allegations, Atty. Lucero presented the Affidavit of Witness 52 executed by Amador and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 53
Further, Atty. Lucero filed a Supplemental Issue and Argument (In the Motion for Reconsideration) 54 wherein he averred that the action has already prescribed. 55 DETACa
In its June 17, 2019 Resolution, the Board of Governors partially granted the Motion for Reconsideration and modified its earlier resolution, to wit:
CBD Case No. 14-4192Florante Yutrago, et al. vs.
RESOLVED to PARTIALLY GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration. And MODIFY the penalty to REPRIMAND. 56
The Court's Ruling
Time-honored is the rule that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he or she is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved. 57 He or she is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his or her duties in accordance with his or her oath. 58
The complainants alleged that Atty. Lucero withdrew their Revocable Permit Applications for a foreshore land without their oral or written consent. Atty. Lucero, in his Answer admitted that he filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the said applications. However, he explained that he only did what Amador, the attorney-in-fact 59 of all the applicants including herein complainants, communicated to him.
When Amador learned of the same through the Order of the CENRO dated March 7, 2005, he called Atty. Lucero and made clarifications of his instruction that the withdrawal should not have included ten (10) applications, including the complainants. 60 To correct the mistake, Atty. Lucero filed a motion for reconsideration to reinstate such applications. 61
As established by the factual milieu of the case, the mistake was actually committed by Amador when he did not expressly state that the withdrawal did not cover all applications. If there was a mistake committed by Atty. Lucero, his acts of filing a motion for reconsideration of the Order of the CENRO dated March 7, 2005 and attending all the hearings on the applications, are clear indications of his good faith.
Atty. Lucero's act of withdrawing the applications were not due to gross negligence. Neither were they motivated by deceit, bad faith, or fraud. He was in good faith when he followed the instructions of Amador, the applicants' attorney-in-fact. It is noteworthy at this juncture that even after the filing by Atty. Lucero of the motion for reconsideration, the applications were called for hearings on August 11, 2006 and November 6, 2006.
The facts of the case do not show that Atty. Lucero's act falls under any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states:
SEC. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by the Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended form his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Atty. Lucero's acts complained of by the complainants was committed without malice and devoid of any intent or desire to defraud the complainants. He had no intention to prejudice the cause of the complainants. Likewise, he was not incompetent or negligent in serving the complainants as their lawyer.
Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. Here, the complainants not only failed to prove their allegations by preponderance of evidence but the act of respondent complained of do not constitute a violation of the CPR.
Lastly, a perusal of the decision of the DENR also showed that the ruling in favor of Purificacion was not only because of the withdrawal of the applicants' revocable permit applications but principally based on the merits of the case. 62
WHEREFORE, the disbarment complaint against Atty. Jasper Lucero is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to his records. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 4-9.
2. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
4. Rule 15.04. — A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
5. Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
6. Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
7. CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
8. Rollo, p. 4.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 2.
11. Id. at 4.
12. Id. at 6.
13. Id. at 6-7.
14. Id. at 23-26.
15. Id. at 24.
16. Id. at 23.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 23-24.
19. Id. at 27-29.
20. Id. at 27.
21. Id. at 30.
22. Id. at 34-41.
23. Id. at 24.
24. Id. at 32-33.
25. Id. at 66-67.
26. Id. 68-71.
27. Id. at 24.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id. at 73.
31. Id. at 75.
32. Id. at 75-76.
33. Id. at 75.
34. Id.
35. Id. at 83-85.
36. Id. at 83.
37. Id. at 80-82.
38. Id. at 99.
39. Id.
40. Id. at 100-106.
41. Id. at 108-115.
42. Id. at 122-124.
43. Id. at 123.
44. Id. at 124.
45. Id. at 121.
46. Id.
47. Id. at 125-129.
48. Id. at 127.
49. Id.
50. Id.
51. Id.
52. Id. at 130.
53. Id. at 128.
54. Id. at 133-136.
55. Id. at 134.
56. Id. at 140.
57. Lanuza v. Atty. Magsalin III, 749 Phil. 104, 112 (2014), citing Spouses Rafols, Jr. v. Atty. Barrios, Jr., 629 Phil. 213, 224 (2010).
58. Id.
59. Rollo, p. 29.
60. Id. at 28.
61. Id. at 27-29.
62. Id. at 15-18.