Facts:

This administrative case arose from a Petition for Disbarment filed by complainant Anita F. Alag against respondent Atty. Juan C. Senupe, Jr. on November 4, 2009, with an attached complaint-affidavit dated October 12, 2009. The case originated from Special Proceedings No. 06-8564, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Salvacion Novo Lopez," pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 29. In this case, complainant and her children were named heirs of the deceased Salvacion Novo Lopez, along with her siblings and cousins. On February 5, 2008, the RTC appointed Reytaliano N. Alag as the Administrator of Salvacion's estate, with specific obligations to identify, collate, and report on the properties left by the decedent. Respondent, as Reytaliano's legal counsel, filed a Motion for the Administrator to Take Over Lot 646-B-2, claiming it was still in Salvacion's name and that complainant and her siblings had been cultivat...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Case

• The administrative case arose from a Petition for Disbarment filed on November 4, 2009, with an attached complaint-affidavit dated October 12, 2009, by complainant Anita F. Alag against respondent Atty. Juan C. Senupe, Jr.
• The complaint alleged that respondent committed acts amounting to deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in connection with his conduct as a lawyer.

Involvement in Intestate Estate Proceedings

• Respondent served as the legal counsel for Reytaliano N. Alag, petitioner in Special Proceedings No. 06-8564 concerning the intestate estate of Salvacion Novo Lopez, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 29.
• An RTC Order dated February 5, 2008, appointed Reytaliano as Administrator of Salvacion’s estate with specific duties:
• Identifying and collating the decedent’s properties together with their marks and titles.
• Rendering an inventory and reporting on the status of each property.
• Reporting on the payment status of the associated taxes.

Dispute Over Lot 646-B-2

• After being sworn in, Reytaliano, through respondent, filed a motion for the administrator to take over Lot 646-B-2 and for an accounting.
• Reytaliano alleged that despite Salvacion’s death in 1992, the lot remained in her name and had been improperly appropriated by complainant and her siblings through cultivation.
• The RTC granted the motion in an Order dated May 4, 2009.
• Conflict ensued when Arnulfo V. Sobrevega, the actual tiller of the lot, refused to surrender possession claiming that complainant had mortgaged the lot to him, and that his cultivation was bound by mortgage conditions.
• Reytaliano subsequently filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession (WP Motion) to remove Arnulfo, which further complicated the proceedings when Arnulfo initially declared he was merely a paid laborer.

Affidavit, Direct Contempt, and Subsequent Motions

• Amid the dispute, Arnulfo executed an Affidavit clarifying that although he was in fact a mortgagee, he had already turned over the possession to Reytaliano; he also stated that complainant had induced him to claim he was only a laborer.
• Based on this Affidavit, respondent moved for the dismissal of the WP Motion on grounds of mootness and for the exclusion of Arnulfo from the direct contempt charge.
• Complainant initiated disbarment proceedings (Case No. 09-2552) alleging that respondent:
• Knew the fact that Lot 646-B-2 was no longer owned by Salvacion and yet included it in the proceedings, thereby causing confusion.
• Acted with gross misconduct by notarizing the Affidavit of Arnulfo, allegedly dealing with a party having an adverse interest to his client.
• The IBP, in an Order dated November 9, 2009, directed respondent to submit an answer to the petition.
• Respondent filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars on November 23, 2009, requesting complainant to produce documentary evidence regarding the alleged mortgage executed by Salvacion and the subsequent transfer of rights.
• Despite the Order dated December 9, 2010, complainant repeatedly failed to furnish the requested documents, prompting further IBP orders and eventually leading respondent to file a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the basis that the allegations constituted a mere harassment suit.

Disciplinary Proceedings and Resolution

• The IBP Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated March 5, 2014, dismissed the complaint, citing complainant’s failure to establish the alleged violations clearly and noting that the issues raised were primarily within the jurisdiction of the probate court.
• Nonetheless, respondent was faulted for procedural lapses, including his failure to timely file an answer and for using a prohibited pleading (Motion to Dismiss). He was consequently suspended from the practice of law for three months by the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) in a Resolution dated February 22, 2015.
• Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that his Motion to Dismiss should have sufficed as his answer under the IBP’s March 8, 2012 Order, which made the filing of position papers optional.
• Ultimately, the IBP-BOG reversed its earlier decision in a Resolution dated January 27, 2017, dismissing the administrative complaint due to the complainant’s failure to adduce any evidence of deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct, thereby exonerating respondent.

Issue:

• Whether respondent’s actions—specifically the inclusion of Lot 646-B-2 in the probate proceedings and the notarization of Arnulfo’s Affidavit—constituted acts of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct warranting disbarment.
• Whether complainant fulfilled the burden of proving her allegations with substantial evidence, as required in administrative proceedings.
• Whether the respondent’s filing of a Motion to Dismiss, a pleading that is normally prohibited, could be acceptable if treated as his answer in light of IBP directives.
• Whether the procedural directive to file position papers was mandatory or optional, and the implications of non-compliance with this order.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)