Case Digest (A.C. No. 4495)
Facts:
Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr. v. Atty. Apolonia A. C. Soguilon, ADM. CASE No. 4495, October 08, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon, alleging misconduct, concealment of the truth and misleading the court in connection with a petition for reconstitution of title (LRC No. Q-7195 (95)) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93, where respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner.
In a letter dated 15 September 1995, complainant recounted that respondent offered as evidence a certified copy of a technical description (marked Exhibit “F”) and a sketch plan (Exhibit “G”) issued by the Land Management Services; both documents bore conspicuous notations warning that Exhibit F was "not an updated survey data" and not valid for titling/transfer, and that Exhibit G was "used for reference purposes only." Despite these annotations, the RTC allowed reconstitution of the title.
In a supplemental letter dated 25 October 1995, complainant further alleged (1) noncompliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 26 — specifically Section 12 in relation to Section 3(f) — because the petition allegedly failed to state the names and addresses of occupants, persons in possession or other interested parties; (2) respondent falsely told the trial court that her client had complied with Land Registration Authority (LRA) requirements when in fact there was no compliance; and (3) a certification by the Deputy Register of Deeds of Rizal showed that TCT No. 17730 was missing from the 1981 inventory, undermining the supposed ownership claimed by Gregorio Agabao.
Respondent filed a Comment denying the charges, asserting she submitted the documents without alteration, relied on information supplied by her client, submitted certified copies to the LRA which were received by its records clerk, and had no involvement with the preparation of the Rizal Register of Deeds' certification.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint through its Commission on Bar Discipline. The Commissioner found that the notations on the exhibits were not hidden or manipulated by respondent and that there was no proof of intentional machination or collusion; the Commission characterized the trial court’s errors as reversible but without evidence of malice by respondent. The Commissioner concluded that the disciplinary process should not punish errors or mistakes absent deceit and recommended dismissal of the complaint.
On 25 June 2005 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Complainant then filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the administrative complaint, citing two Court of Appeals decisions (Decision of 30 January 1997 in C.A. G.R. SP No. 40897, Edith R. Agabao v. Hon. Demetrio B. Macapagal et al.; and D...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution dismissing the disbarment complaint be disturbed by the Court?
- Did respondent maliciously mislead the trial court by failing to point out the notations on Exhibits “F” and “G”?
- Did respondent deliberately omit the names of persons entitled to notice under R.A. No. 26 from the petition for reconstitution?
- Did respondent fraudulently claim compliance with LRA requiremen...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)