Case Digest (A.C. No. 7686)
Facts:
Jaime Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Attys. Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin III, A.C. No. 7686, July 31, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Complainants Jaime Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing filed an administrative disbarment complaint against respondents attorneys Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin III alleging deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and falsification of public documents arising from a labor case, NLRC NCR CA No. 039270-04 (Jaime Joven v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc./Dusit Hotel Nikko), in which respondents represented the employer-client.
The NLRC rendered a decision on July 16, 2007. Complainants’ counsel, Atty. Solon R. Garcia, received his copy of the decision on August 14, 2007. Respondents’ law office returned a Registry Return Receipt stamped “RECEIVED AUG 24 2007” and signed by “Tess,” indicating respondents received their copy on August 24, 2007. On September 5, 2007, Atty. Garcia received by registered mail a Partial Motion for Reconsideration dated August 29, 2007 and signed by respondents’ counsel, which expressly stated the copy of the decision was “received on August 24, 2007.”
Finding the ten-day gap suspicious, complainants sought verification from the Quezon City Central Post Office (QCCPO). The QCCPO issued a certification dated September 17, 2007 stating that Registered Letter No. 6452 was posted at the NLRC post office on August 6, 2007 and was delivered and received by Henry Agillon on August 14, 2007. Complainants relied on this certification to allege that respondents’ law firm had altered the Registry Return Receipt to show a later date so as to extend the period to file a motion for reconsideration, and thus committed falsification of a public document and related professional offenses.
This Court required respondents to comment on February 6, 2008. In their Comment with Motion to Dismiss, respondents denied the allegations and explained their office’s mail-receiving practice: on August 14, 2007 an office staffer, Henry A. Agellon, received four registered mails and signed the postman’s logbook and stamped AUG 14 2007; on August 24, 2007 their secretary, Tess Calucag, received a different batch of registered mails and stamped RECEIVED AUG 24 2007 and signed the Registry Return Cards in the postman’s presence. Respondents produced copies of their office logbook and two certifications from the NLRC Post Office (NLRC PO) which (they said) showed the NLRC PO records and dispatches that undermined the QCCPO certification.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation by Resolution dated June 2, 2008. IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag, in a Report and Recommendation dated February 18, 2009, found insufficient proof against ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did complainants meet the burden of proof required to sustain an administrative disbarment complaint against respondents?
- Substantive: Were respondents guilty of falsification of a public document, deceit, malpractice or gross misconduct in relation to the alleged alteration of the Registry Return Receipt and the Partial ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)