Case Digest (A.C. No. 6490)
Facts:
Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang v. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 09, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainants Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang alleged that in 1984–1985 Lilia sought the advice of Judge Eustaquio Gacott (respondent’s father) in acquiring some thirty hectares of agricultural land in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Because of agrarian reform limits, Judge Gacott purportedly advised Lilia to place titles under fictitious names. Following that advice, Lilia acquired seven parcels and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) in the names of purported owners: TCT Nos. 12475 (Amelia Andes), 12476 (Wilfredo Ondoy), 12790 (Agnes Camilla), 12791 (Leonor Petronio), 12792 (Wilfredo Gomez), 12793 (Elizabeth Dungan), and 12794 (Andes Estoy).
When Lilia and Concepcion later sought to sell the parcels, respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott borrowed the seven TCTs from Lilia claiming he would find buyers; about a year later he claimed to have lost them. Lilia filed petitions for re-issuance of titles, acting as purported agent of the ostensible owners; the public prosecutor noted similarities in signatures on the Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs), prompting Lilia to voluntarily dismiss the petitions and later re-file altered petitions. Respondent then executed revocations of SPAs and affidavits of recovery allegedly signed by the ostensible owners, had these annotations entered on the TCTs, published notices claiming ownership, and offered the parcels for sale. Respondent ultimately sold the seven parcels and received proceeds totaling ₱3,773,675.00, according to the complaint.
Complainants filed a direct complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on February 3, 2003 (Commission on Bar Discipline Case No. 03-1054). Respondent denied wrongdoing, asserting the owners were real and voluntarily sold the parcels, that Lilia was merely a broker who demanded a 20% “balato,” and that he had filed criminal complaints against Lilia. IBP Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro (Report dated March 4, 2004) found respondent guilty of gross misconduct under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended six months’ suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but increased the penalty to disbarment and referred the case to the Court under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court, in a September 29, 2004 resolution, remanded the matter to the IBP because complainants’ proofs were largely photocopies and affidavits and the ostensible owners were not presented or subpoenaed. The case was reassigned (first to Commissioner Dennis B. Funa, then to Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco after Funa inhibited himself). Multiple hearings were held (2005–2007). Complainants presented witnesses who had purchased lots from respondent — Dieter Heinze (Swiss American Lending Corp.), Atty. Agerico Paras, and Teodoro Gallinero — who testified to respondent’s representations of ownership, payments made, adverse annotations on titles, and respondent’s failure to produce the supposed owners.
Commissioner Limpingco (Report and Recommendation dated August 23, 2010) found respondent guilty of gross violation of Rule 1.01 and of unduly delaying proceedings contrary to Rule 12.04; he recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adop...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Atty. Glenn C. Gacott engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment?
- Was the evidence presented by complainants sufficient by a preponderance to justify the imposition of the supre...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)