ROGELIO
H. VILLANUEVA, ADM. CASE NO. 5018
Complainant,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
- versus
- CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
ATTY.
AMADO B. DELORIA,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
This treats of the Complaint[1]
for Disbarment dated
Villanueva avers that a decision in
that case was rendered by Housing and Land Use Arbiter,[2]
Atty. Teresita R. Alferez, requiring
the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to, among other things, refund to the spouses De Gracia the amount of P69,000.00 plus interest at the
prevailing commercial interest rates. The
case was eventually assigned to Villanueva upon the latter’s designation as
Arbiter.
It appears that Atty. Deloria filed a Motion for Issuance of Substitute Judgment
and for Consignation[3]
claiming that the Estate of Jaime Gonzales does not want to pay interest based
on commercial interest rates. Villanueva
asserts, however, that Atty. Deloria’s allegation is
belied by two motions filed by counsel for the Estate of Jaime Gonzales which
merely seek to clarify the precise interest rate applicable to the case in order
for it to fully comply with the decision.
Atty. Deloria’s
misrepresentation is allegedly a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code), particularly Canons 1,[4]
10,[5] 12[6]
and 19[7]
thereof, the Attorney’s Oath of Office and Art. 19 of the Civil Code. Atty. Deloria also
allegedly violated Canon 11[8] of
the Code because he sought the substitution of a decision which he knew had
already become final and partially executed.
Villanueva notes that Atty. Deloria enclosed with his motion a check in the amount of P69,000.00
payable to the order of the Estate of Jaime Gonzales and Corazon Gonzales,
representing the principal refunded to the spouses De Gracia
in compliance with the decision. Villanueva
states that the check was drawn against Atty. Deloria’s
personal checking account in violation of Canon 16[9] of
the Code.
Moreover, according to Villanueva,
Atty. Deloria offered him 50% of the recoverable
amount in the case if he resolves the latter’s motion favorably.[10] Atty.
Deloria’s conduct allegedly violates the previously
cited canons of the Code, Canon 13,[11]
Rule 15.06,[12] Canon
15 of the Code, Art. 212 of the Revised Penal Code, the Attorney’s Oath of
Office and Art. 19 of the Civil Code.
Villanueva also alleges that Atty. Deloria used his influence as former Commissioner of the
HLURB to persuade Atty. Alferez to impose interest
based on commercial rates instead of the interest rate fixed in Resolution No.
R-421[13]
and Memorandum Circular No. 19,[14]
both of which provide a uniform rate of interest in decisions involving
refunds. Atty. Deloria also allegedly used his
connections in the HLURB to prevent Villanueva from releasing an Order denying the
former’s motion and to prevail upon the agency’s Legal
Services Group to interpret the term “commercial rate of interest” in a way
that is favorable to his client’s case, again in violation of the Code.[15]
Further, Villanueva claims that Atty.
Deloria assisted his client in filing an unfounded
criminal case against him before the Office of the Ombudsman with the purpose
of getting even with Villanueva for denying their motion. When his client pursued this course of
action, Atty. Deloria allegedly should have withdrawn
his services in accordance with Rule 22.01,[16]
Canon 22 of the Code.
In his Comment[17]
dated
Atty. Deloria
counters that it is Villanueva who has exhibited partiality in favor of the
Estate of Jaime Gonzales by failing to rule on the motions for clarification
filed by the latter, thereby forcing the spouses De Gracia
to wait for an inordinately long time for the decision in their favor to be
fully implemented.
Villanueva, in his Reply[18]
dated
In a Resolution[19]
dated
Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan submitted a
Report[20] dated
September 29, 2005, finding merit in the Complaint and recommending that Atty. Deloria be suspended from the practice of law for two (2)
years and/or be fined in the amount of P20,000.00. This recommendation was annulled and set
aside by the IBP in its Resolution No. XVII-2006-279 dated
The report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner appears to be based solely on the Rollo of the case which the Court sent to the IBP pursuant
to the Resolution dated
A formal investigation is a mandatory
requirement which may not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling
reasons.[21] In Baldomar
v. Paras,[22]
we held:
Complaints
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. x x x
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
provides the procedure for investigation in disbarment and disciplinary
proceedings against attorneys before the IBP, thus:
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.
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 or 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 Baord 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.
We find that due observance of the
foregoing rules is necessary for the proper resolution of this case.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative
case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
[4]CANON 1—A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
[5]CANON 10—A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02—A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
[6]CANON 12—A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
[7]CANON 19—A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
[8]CANON 11—A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
[9]CANON 16—A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
[11]CANON 13—A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
[12]Rule 15.06—A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
[16]Rule 22.01—A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
[21]Tabang v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6490, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 307; Fajardo v. Dela Torre, A.C. No. 6295, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 125; and Arandia v. Magalong, 435 Phil. 199 (2002).
[22]401 Phil. 370, 373 (2000), citing Cottam v. Atty. Laysa, 383 Phil. 510, 514-516 (2000).