Title
Joven vs. Cruz
Case
A.C. No. 7686
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2013
Attorneys accused of altering NLRC decision receipt date; Supreme Court dismissed disbarment complaint due to insufficient evidence, upholding presumption of innocence.
administrative complaint
lack of merit
proof

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7686)

Factual Background

The NLRC decision in NLRC NCR CA No. 039270-04 was received by petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Solon R. Garcia, on August 14, 2007. Petitioners alleged that respondents likewise actually received their copy on August 14, 2007, and they challenged respondents’ use of August 24, 2007 as the receipt date.

Petitioners contended that their receipt-date theory was supported by a QCCPO Certification secured through a request connected to the NUWHRAIN—Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter. The QCCPO certification stated that Registered Letter No. 6452—addressed to Atty. Frankie O. Magsalin III—was posted at NLRC post office on August 6, 2007, delivered by the postman/window delivery clerk/lock box in-charge and “duly received by Henry Agillon on Aug. 14, 2007,” after which it was returned to sender.

Petitioners lodged the administrative complaint by alleging that Teresita “Tess” Calucag, described as secretary of respondents’ law firm, altered the true date of receipt when she signed and stamped the Registry Return Receipt, changing the date to August 24, 2007 to mislead the NLRC and the opposing party. Petitioners concluded that respondents caused or authorized the alteration and then used the altered date in a pleading.

Petitioners further emphasized the opening statement on page 1 of respondents’ Partial Motion for Reconsideration, where respondents stated that the NLRC decision “copy of which was received on August 24, 2007.” Petitioners characterized the alteration of the registry receipt and the use of the allegedly untruthful receipt date in the motion as constituting falsification of public documents, together with deceit and gross professional misconduct.

Procedural History and Responses

On February 6, 2008, the Court required respondents to comment. Respondents denied the allegations and sought dismissal through their Comment with Motion to Dismiss. Respondents asserted that on August 14, 2007, their office received several registered mails, including the relevant decision mail, through their staff Henry A. Agellon, who allegedly signed the postman’s logbook and stamped the receipt cards with AUG 14 2007.

Respondents further explained their internal handling of incoming mail: they claimed that when Agellon received the registered mails while the secretary was busy or away, Agellon ensured that he wrote the correct date on the registry return cards. He would then stamp “Received” and the actual date of receipt and turn the cards over to Calucag for recording in her logbook before distribution to the lawyers.

Respondents claimed that on August 24, 2007, their office received another batch of registered mails based on the postman’s logbook, and that on that date Calucag allegedly received and stamped the registry return cards in the presence of the postman. Respondents stated that their copy of the NLRC decision was among the registered mails delivered on August 24, 2007 and was among those stamped and signed by Calucag, even if it was not among the nine registered mails listed in the postman’s logbook for that date.

Respondents also presented certifications from the NLRC Post Office (NLRC PO), asserting that these destroyed the evidentiary weight of the QCCPO certification. One certification allegedly stated that there was no Registered Letter No. 6452 dispatched by NLRC PO to the QCCPO addressed to Atty. Magsalin in connection with the NLRC case. Another certification allegedly stated that Registered Letter No. 6463 addressed to Atty. Magsalin was mailed at NLRC PO and dispatched to QCCPO on August 10, 2007.

IBP Proceedings and Recommendation

By Resolution dated June 2, 2008, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In his Report and Recommendation dated February 18, 2009, IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag recommended dismissal for lack of merit. He reasoned that petitioners failed to show sufficient proof to sustain their claim, and that respondents had rebutted the accusations. Commissioner Hababag ruled that, considering the certifications, the NLRC PO certification was controlling because it was the post office where the copies of the NLRC decision were actually mailed, while petitioners’ reliance on the QCCPO certification did not adequately establish respondents’ alleged wrongdoing.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted Commissioner Hababag’s recommendation. In Resolution No. XVIII-2009-112, the Board resolved to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit.

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 29, 2009, arguing that the IBP erred in finding insufficient proof and contending that the QCCPO certification clearly established actual receipt on August 14, 2007. Petitioners argued that only the QCCPO could certify delivery and receipt by respondents, and that the IBP failed to explain how the NLRC PO certifications could rebut the QCCPO certification, as well as the postman’s affidavit and delivery book.

Upon denial of their motion, petitioners filed the present petition for review before the Court.

Ruling of the Court

The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the complaint.

The Court reiterated that the burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant. It also emphasized that an attorney is presumed innocent of the charges until the contrary is proved, and that an attorney is presumed to have performed duties in accordance with the oath.

The Court held that petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving respondents’ administrative liability. It acknowledged that, assuming the QCCPO certification had prima facie credence, it still found no clear and convincing evidence that respondents maliciously made it appear that the NLRC decision was received ten days later than shown by the QCCPO certification.

The Court rejected petitioners’ theory that the secretary, Calucag, was ordered to stamp a later date to extend the filing period for a motion for reconsideration. It considered that theory speculative and conjectural and not supported by clear preponderant evidence sufficient to justify disciplinary action.

The Court also gave weight to the fact that the registry return card itself, which the QCCPO returned to the NLRC, allegedly corroborated respondents’ claim of receipt on August 24, 2007 based on the date the office relied upon and that the postman accepted and delivered. The Court reasoned that if Calucag had stamped the wrong date, the postman—who had full view of the receiving and stamping—would have called it to Calucag’s attention or refused to receive the registry return card altogether.

Finally, the Court noted internal consistency points supporting respondents. It observed that the registered mails delivered on August 14, 2007 were received by Agellon, explaining his signature in the postman’s logbook for that date. It also considered that the Registry Return Card for the questioned decision was signed by Calucag and not by Agellon, which supported respondents’ assertion that the decision may not have been among those received on August 14 by Agellon.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s decision rested on evidentiary standards in attorney disciplinary proceedings. It treated disbarment as a proceeding that required the complainant to prove administrative liability by clearly preponderant evidence. Because petitioners’ case depended heavily on drawi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms