NICANOR
B. GATMAYTAN, JR.,
Complainant,
-versus-
A.C.
No. 6086
January
26, 2005
ATTY.
ISIDRO C. ILAO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
“The
power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution
and only for the most weighty reasons.”[1]
Before
Us is an appeal of the Resolution[2] passed by the Board of Governors
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation[3] of Investigating Commissioner Milagros V.
San Juan dated 04 April 2003, dismissing the complaint[4] for
disbarment filed by Atty. Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr., against Atty.
Isidro C. Ilao for violations of Canons 8, 10, and 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
THE
FACTS
Complainant
Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr., is a practicing lawyer who represented a
certain Teofista Payuran in Civil Case No. 4381-P before the Pasay City
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 109, for cancellation of
title.[5] Respondent Atty. Isidro Ilao, on the other hand, was
counsel for the respondents in the said case.
On 17
August 1995, complainant received the Decision[6] rendered in Civil
Case No. 4381-P penned by Judge Lilia C. Lopez, the dispositive portion
of which reads:
In
view of all the foregoing, this Court hereby orders plaintiff Teofista
Payuran to pay the defendants and third-party plaintiff Chiu Chin Siong
as follows:
1.
P935,750.00 representing the total amount of rentals from January 16,
1976 to December 31, 1985. P485,418.75 representing the interest
earned from the time they fell due up to December 31, 1986, and such
amount representing the interest earned by the combined principal and
interest from January 1, 1987 at the legal rate of 12% per annum until
fully paid;
2.
The amount of P220,000.00 as attorney’s acceptance fee plus P500.00 per
appearance and 20% of whatever amount the defendant third-party
plaintiff may recover;
3.
For plaintiff Teofista Payuran, Atty. Augusto Gatmaytan and Pentel
Merchandising Co., Inc., Quintin Lim Eng Seng and Quintin O. Lim to
jointly and solidarily pay the sum of One Million (P1,000,000.00)
pesos as moral damages and Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) pesos as
exemplary damages plus cost of suit.[7]
Thereafter,
complainant, as counsel for Teofista Payuran, filed on 24 August 1995 a
Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid decision, the denial of
which was received by Atty. Gatmaytan on 24 October 1995. On 07
November 1995, complainant filed a second Motion for Reconsideration[8]
which was subsequently denied, the notice thereof received on 26
December 1995. Consequently, on 08 January 1996, complainant, as
counsel, filed a notice of appeal before the court a quo. Said
notice of appeal was however denied due course on the ground that the
appeal was already time-barred. Thereupon, complainant, on behalf of
Teofista Payuran, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus[9]
before the Court of Appeals.
On 14
February 2002, during the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari,
Atty. Ilao, as counsel for Clifton Chiu,[10] filed before this Court a
Complaint for Disbarment[11] against herein complainant, Atty. Nicanor
Gatmaytan, Jr., for violations of Canons 10, 12, 15, and 19 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. On 07 March 2002, Atty. Ilao, in
his personal capacity and as attorney-in-fact of his co-plaintiffs,[12]
filed a complaint for damages in the RTC of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch
14, against herein complainant, Teofista Payuran and Atty. Augusto
Gatmaytan.
On 05
August 2002, herein complainant Atty. Gatmaytan, filed his own
Complaint for Disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Ilao. Atty.
Gatmaytan claims that by filing the complaint for damages before the
RTC of Nasugbu, respondent is guilty of making false representations
and advice to his clients, as well as committing falsehood, misleading
the court and misusing the Rules of Procedure.
It is
this disbarment case against Atty. Ilao which is the subject matter of
herein disquisition.
After
submission of the necessary pleadings, Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan, on 04 April 2003, issued her Report and Recommendation[13]
recommending the dismissal of Atty. Gatmaytan’s complaint for lack of
merit. On 26 April 2003, Resolution No. XV-2003-211[14] was
passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP, which adopted and approved
the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
hence, the dismissal of the disbarment case. On 10 July 2003,
complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the dismissal
of the complaint without the Commissioner conducting an
investigation. The Board of Governors of the IBP, having already
endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court in accordance with Section
12(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, hence, no longer exercising
jurisdiction over it, denied said Motion for Reconsideration in a
resolution[15] dated 30 August 2003. Nevertheless, the Court, in
a resolution dated 12 January 2004, resolved to treat complainant’s
Motion for Reconsideration as an appeal to the Supreme Court of the
earlier resolution[16] of the IBP. Hence, the instant appeal.
THE
ISSUE
In his
appeal, the sole issue complainant raises is the absence of an
investigation conducted in connection with the resolution of his
complaint for disbarment. He asserts that instead of dismissing
outright the complaint for lack of merit, Commissioner San Juan should
have conducted an investigation of the charged violations of the Canons
of Professional Responsibility by respondent pursuant to Rule 139-B,
Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
OF THE COURT
To
properly address the issue raised by complainant, we must analyze
Section 8 of Rule 139-B in relation to the pertinent section contained
in said Rule -- Section 5 of Rule 139-B. They provide, thus:
SEC. 5.
Service or dismissal. – If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the
Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days
from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action,
or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the
complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of
Governors upon his recommendation. [Emphasis ours]
SEC.
8. Investigation. – Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the
respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed,
proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the
power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent
shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses
on behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte.
Quite
clearly, the above provisions plainly show two (2) modes of initiatory
actions that the Investigator is empowered to take upon the complaint –
either dismiss the same without delay or proceed with the
investigation. Perforce:
A)
The Investigator shall proceed with the investigation of the case:
1)
if the complaint appears to be meritorious; or
2)
upon joinder of the issues (upon submission of the answer by respondent
within fifteen [15] days from the date of service), when the answer
shows that the complaint is indeed meritorious; or
3)
if respondent fails to answer.
B)
On the other hand, the investigator may recommend the dismissal of the
same:
1)
if the complaint lacks merit; or
2)
if the answer shows, to the satisfaction of the Investigator, that the
complaint is not meritorious.
Verily,
it is within the sound discretion of the Investigator to determine
whether or not the complaint is meritorious and if an investigation
must indeed ensue.
In the
case at bar, Commissioner San Juan did not see the need to conduct an
investigation because, to her mind, the instances when an investigation
shall push through did not arise. Respondent Atty. Ilao did
submit his answer to the complaint and after the exchange of pleadings
between the parties, the Commissioner made the determination that the
complaint does not merit action and must therefore be dismissed.
We quote, with approval, the ratiocination of Commissioner San Juan in
reaching the conclusion to dismiss the case:
A
perusal of the Complaint for Damages (Civil Case No. 684) filed by
herein respondent and his co-plaintiffs against Teofista Payuran and
Attys. Nicanor Gatmaytan, Jr. and Augusto Gatmaytan, will readily show
that said complaint was filed precisely because CA-G.R. SP No. 41717
was filed by Teofista Payuran with the assistance of herein complainant
Atty. Nicanor Gatmaytan, Jr. The pertinent allegations of the
said Complaint for Damages read as follows:
11. As a
direct result of the filing of the said unfounded and baseless petition
for Certiorari and Mandamus, the auction sale of the levied properties
which was held at Cavity City on August 30, 1996, and despite the fact
that a Certificate of Sale has had already been duly executed by the
sheriff, the same could not be approved by the Honorable Trial Court
and hence, the same could not be registered and for which reason the
redemption period has not yet started which, has it not been for the
filing of the said petition, the redemption period should have been
within the month of September 1997 wherein One US Dollar was costing
about x x x P32.3945 Pesos, but now the ratio of One Dollar is more
that Fifty Pesos x x x, thereby at this point in time, plaintiffs had
already suffered a loss in the purchasing power which may not be less
than Two Million Pesos.
Whether
or not there is merit to respondent’s and his co-plaintiffs’ claim for
damages in Civil Case No. 684 is not relevant to the instant
case. As herein complainant himself pointed out, the right to
litigate is guaranteed by the Constitution and no less than the Supreme
Court itself in “R&B Surety and Insurance Co. v. IAC,” 129 SCRA 736
stated that:
The adverse
result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and
subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have
meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. Sound
principles of justice and public policy demand that the persons shall
have free resort to the courts of law for redress and vindication of
their rights without fear of later on standing trial for damages should
their actions lose ground.
Regarding
complainant’s contention that the filing of Civil Case No. 684 with the
Regional Trial Court of Nasugbu, Batangas was intended to harass the
defendants in said case because said case could have been filed with
the courts in Parañaque, Metro Manila, is likewise without
merit. It was expressly stated in said Complaint for Damages that
one of the plaintiffs in said case, herein respondent, was a resident
of Nasugbu, Batangas. Since under the Rules of Court, venue may
be the residence of the defendants or of the plaintiffs, at the option
of the plaintiffs, Civil Case No. 684 was properly filed in Batangas,
the residence of herein respondent.[17]
The
Court, in the case of Estrella Real Estate Corporation v. Court of
Appeals,[18] has enunciated that in the absence of any showing that the
findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or
that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of
discretion, such findings must stand. Consequently, absent a
showing that there is grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
complaint, the Court must give credence to the findings and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the Board of
Governors of the IBP that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of
merit.
Evidently,
complainant is belaboring under a misapprehension of Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court. To the extent of being repetitive, it is only when the
complaint bears merit, or when the answer fails to show that the
complaint indeed lacks merit, or when respondent fails to file an
answer that an investigation shall proceed. Otherwise, if the
complaint is bereft of merit, either on its face or as proven by
respondent’s answer, it will be unjust to mandate the Investigator to
conduct an investigation.
For
failure to establish that respondent Atty. Ilao made false
representations and advice to his clients, committed falsehood, misled
the court, and misused the Rules of Procedure in violation of the
Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Resolution of
the IBP dismissing the complaint must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant Appeal is hereby DENIED.
The Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated 26 April
2003 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
Puno,
J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
Callejo,
Sr., J., on official leave.
[1] De
Guzman v. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554 (1939).
[2]
Resolution No. XV–2003–211, 26 April 2003; Rollo, p. 98.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 99-109.
[4]
Filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline on 05 August 2002; Rollo,
pp. 1-5.
[5]
See Annex A of the Complaint, Rollo, pp. 7-31.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 32-43.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[8] In
violation of Rule 37, Sec. 5, par. 2 of the Rules of Court which
states: “No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration
of a judgment or final order.”
[9]
CA-G.R. SP No. 41717.
[10]
One of the Respondents in Civil Case No. 4381-P.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 66-71.
[12]
Respondents in Civil Case No. 4381-P namely: Cham Man Ley, Clifton
Chiu, Mercy O. Chiu, Winston Chiu, Marilyn Chiu-Maningas, and Noel
Maningas.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 99-109.
[14]
Rollo, p. 98.
[15]
Resolution No. XVI-2003-115; Rollo, p. 111.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 106-109.
[18]
G.R. No. 128862, 30 September 1999, 315 SCRA 650, 657.
|