THIRD DIVISION
[AC No. 4834. February 29, 2000]
FELICIDAD L.
COTTAM, complainant, vs. ATTY. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA, respondent. ALEX
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
Felicidad Lacsamana Cottam has charged Atty.
Estrella O. Laysa with gross misconduct and dishonesty.
Complainant averred to be the owner of two
(2) parcels of land in Tagaytay City covered by TCT No. T-21247 and No.
T-21248. On 28 August 1993, complainant executed a special power of attorney in
favor of Faustino J. Aledia, giving the latter authority to mortgage the
property. By virtue of the special power of attorney, Aledia, on 20 September
1993, executed a deed of real estate mortgage in favor of Banahaw Lending
Corporation to secure a P500,000.00 financing. On 16 August 1994, complainant
paid in full the mortgage obligation and the Banahaw Lending Corporation, on
even date, released the mortgage. Complainant thereupon learned that TCT No.
T-21247 and No. T-21248 were still in the custody of respondent lawyer. Atty.
Laysa, at first, refused to talk with complainant; later, however, respondent
presented complainant with a statement of account of Faustino Aledia (allegedly
for Felicidad Lacsamana), as of 16 May 1997, for P888,750.00. Respondent then
intimated to complainant that she would have to pay the amount before the
certificates of title could be released. Respondent, who notarized both the
real estate mortgage and the release of the mortgage, was aware that the
special power of attorney executed in favor of Aledia was not renewed. Scedp
In her comment, Atty. Laysa alleged that she
was, from 1979 to 1993, the legal counsel of Banahaw Lending Corporation. As
such, she was, among other things, tasked to notarize documents involving
transactions of the company with its clients. She admitted the execution of the
real estate mortgage. When Aledia defaulted in the secured obligation, the
lending corporation instituted foreclosure proceedings over the property. At
the time of the foreclosure, Atty. Laysa was no longer the lawyer of the
lending corporation. She claimed that she was approached by Aledia to help him
look for any party who could help settle the mortgage obligation, the
complainant being still then in England. Atty. Laysa contacted her sister, Emma
O. Laysa, and another relative, Teofila Ambita, who contributed P110,000.00 and
P390,000.00, respectively, to pay the outstanding mortgage obligation.
Accordingly, on 10 August 1994, another Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was
executed by Aledia in favor of Ambita and Emma Laysa, this time for the sum of
P650,000.00, the additional P150,000.00 being the interest for one (1) year at
30% per annum. When this second mortgage was executed, the special power of
attorney issued in favor of Aledia was not yet revoked and was still valid and
subsisting. As a result of the arrangement, the foreclosure application
initiated by Banahaw Lending Corporation was withdrawn. Initially, Aledia was
paying the interests on the loan but he later secretly left the country and
went to the United States, forcing respondent lawyer to pay her sister the
total amount of P110,000.00, and Ambita, the accrued interests on the loan.
Atty. Laysa fully apprised complainant of the matter, and suggested that they
should go after Aledia if, indeed, complainant had been faithful in paying,
through Aledia, her obligation. Complainant then asked respondent lawyer for a
statement of the total amount owing from Aledia which she would use to effect
his arrest by the Interpol. Atty. Laysa obliged. Calrspped
In her reply to the comment, complainant
asserted that respondent was aware that the object of the special power of
attorney had already been accomplished. She considered incredible the
allegation of respondent that the second mortgage contract was executed four
(4) days from the discharge of the first mortgage, adding that the balance
owing to the lending corporation was only P394,015.72 which was paid through
the money sent by complainant to Aledia. She could not thus understand why the
second mortgage was for P650,000.00. Complainant claimed that she learned of
the second mortgage, as well as the supposed payment made by respondent to the
second mortgagees, only after the filing of this case. Finally, complainant
argues that, assuming a default on her part, respondent lawyer, nevertheless,
should have taken steps to foreclose the second mortgage if only to protect the
interest of the mortgagees. Sccalr
In the Court’s resolution of 22 June 1998,
the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
("IBP") for investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan, in her report, dated 08 December 1998, recommended that
respondent lawyer be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year and
that her appointment as Notary Public be revoked. The IBP Board of Governors,
in its Resolution No. XIII-99-161, adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
When Atty. Laysa learned of the resolution
of the IBP Board of Governors, she promptly sought a reconsideration thereof.
Respondent lawyer averred that no formal investigation had at all been held by
the IBP and the report of the Investigating Commissioner was issued without
affording respondent lawyer a right to be heard.
A review of the records would indeed show
that no formal investigation was conducted by IBP on the case. Calrsc
Complainants against lawyers for misconduct
are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a
complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the case. If,
however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such
as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings
submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case
during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex
parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear
despite reasonable notice. Hereunder are some of the pertinent provisions of
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on this matter; viz:
"SEC. 3. Duties
of the National Grievance Investigator. – The National Grievance
Investigators shall investigate all complaints against members of the
Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors.Sppedsc
"x x x x x x x
x x
"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. A copy
of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the
Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely
appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of
the complaint.
"No
investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of
the complainant to prosecute the same.
"x x x x x x x
x x.
"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 his behalf and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte. Misact
"The
Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the
date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of
Governors upon prior application.
"Willful
failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of Court. The
corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of
Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten
(10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule
for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable
be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the
IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution
setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the
imposition of penalty." Acctmis
The procedures outlined by the Rules are
meant to ensure that the innocents are spared from wrongful condemnation and
that only the guilty are meted their just due. Obviously, these requirements
cannot be taken lightly.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is REMANDED to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further proceedings conformably with the
above disquisition and to act on this referral with dispatch.
SO ORDERED. Newmiso
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.