A.C. No. 9881 - Paguia vs. Molina

The dispute arises out of a conflict between neighbors residing in a four‐unit compound called “Times Square” located at Times Street, Quezon City.
The neighbors involved include:

A contract entitled “Times Square Preamble” was executed among the unit owners to establish internal rules on issues such as the use of the common right of way, parking arrangements, and security.
Mr. And Mrs. Abreu, particularly Mr. Abreu, did not join the contract because he withheld his consent over the parking arrangement provisions; hence, he was not bound by the agreement.

On 4 February 2010, Atty. Paguia filed an administrative Complaint for Dishonesty before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Molina.
The core allegation was that Atty. Molina advised his clients that the Times Square Preamble was binding on Mr. Abreu even though he was never a signatory to the agreement.
The complaint was primarily based on bare allegations with no accompanying evidence indicating that respondent Molina actually rendered the contested legal advice.

In his Answer, Atty. Molina minimized the conflict as merely a neighborly quarrel.

He explained that the Times Square Preamble was intended to maintain order, and it was signed by all homeowners except Mr. Abreu.
He further noted that separate cases had been initiated by Mr. and Mrs. Abreu, including one with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and another for declaratory relief, both of which were dismissed.

Another related case arose when Mr. Abreu allegedly obstructed the Lims’ egress by blocking their designated parking area, leading to a court-issued temporary restraining order and injunction.

On 3 August 2010, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez rendered a Report and Recommendation urging dismissal of the complaint on two grounds:

The complaint consisted only of unsubstantiated allegations; and
Even assuming an erroneous legal advice was given, no malice or bad faith was evident to render Atty. Molina liable.

On 14 May 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation through Resolution No. XIX-2011-210.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Paguia on 2 August 2011 was eventually denied on 29 December 2012.
The parties received notice of the denial on 21 March 2013; however, Atty. Paguia failed to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice, which pursuant to Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B, meant that the case was deemed terminated.

The record reveals that there was no direct evidence of Atty. Molina imparting the disputed legal advice, as allegations were uncorroborated by any testimonial or documentary evidence.
Even under the assumption that such advice was provided, the absence of indicators of bad faith or malicious intent precluded establishing administrative liability.

Whether Atty. Molina’s alleged legal advice, advising that the Times Square Preamble was binding on Mr. Abreu despite his non-signatory status, constitutes an act of dishonesty warranting administrative sanction.
Whether the complaint against Atty. Molina meets the requisite quantum and burden of proof required in disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer.
Whether a mere erroneous legal advice, in the absence of demonstrable malice or bad faith, can justify administrative liability.
Whether the subsequent non-filing of a petition for review within the prescribed fifteen (15) day period renders the case terminated under Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B.