Case Digest (A.C. No. 6475)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6475)
Facts:
Fe A. Ylaya v. Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott, 702 Phil. 390; 109 O.G. No. 41, 7478 (November 4, 2013), Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Fe A. Ylaya, alleged that she and her late husband, Laurentino L. Ylaya, were the registered owners of two parcels of land (TCT Nos. 162632 and 162633) in Puerto Princesa City and that their counsel, Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott (respondent), induced them to sign a preparatory deed which he later converted, without their knowledge, into a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001 in favor of the respondent’s relatives for P200,000.00. The subject properties were already the subject of expropriation proceedings (RTC, Branch 95, Civil Case No. 2902) in which the City Government had been ordered to deposit P6,000,000.00 as just compensation.
After respondent submitted his comment, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, evaluation and recommendation. The IBP investigating commissioner, upon review of the record, found respondent administratively liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (dishonest or deceitful conduct), Canon 16 (failure to hold client monies/properties in trust), and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice), and recommended six months suspension.
The IBP Board of Governors, however, adopted the findings but increased the penalty to two years suspension with a warning by Resolution No. XVIII-2007-302 dated December 14, 2007. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration attaching, among other things, the complainant’s later Affidavit (dated February 27, 2008) and a Compromise Agreement in the expropriation proceedings. The IBP Board of Governors denied reconsideration by Resolution No. XIX-2010-545 dated October 8, 2010.
On March 14, 2012, respondent filed a Petition for Review (on appeal) with the Supreme Court challenging the IBP findings on several grounds: denial of due process because no formal hearing/cross-examination was conducted; the IBP disregarded public documents (MOA and other deeds); the complainant’s affidavit admitting genuineness of certain documents; and that the IBP erred in finding absence of co-ownership and in applying the notarial rules. The record also shows procedural events: a mandatory conference (October 6, 2005) where the complainant failed to appear, respondent’s Motion to Resolve (Aug. 24, 2006), the complainant’s Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the Verified Complaint (Nov. 14, 2006) and a Compromise Agreement in the expropriation case which provided the complainant a share of just compensation.
The Supreme Court resolved the petition in the Second Division and issued the decision authored by Justice Brion.
Issues:
- Did the IBP and its Board of Governors violate respondent’s right to procedural due process in the disciplinary proceedings?
- Did the evidence support findings of administrative liability for the specific charges: (a) deceit/fraud (Canon 1, Rule 1.01), (b) violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (notarial disqualification), and (c) violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.03; Canon 16; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)