Title
Paguia vs. Molina
Case
A.C. No. 9881
Decision Date
Jun 4, 2014
Neighbors dispute over "Times Square Preamble" agreement; Atty. Molina cleared of dishonesty due to lack of evidence; complaint dismissed, case terminated.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9881)

Allegations of Dishonesty

The complaint alleged that Atty. Molina provided misleading legal advice to his clients, stating that the "Times Square Preamble," which established internal rules among unit owners, was binding on Mr. Abreu, who did not consent to the agreement. Atty. Paguia contended that Mr. Abreu's absence from the contract should exempt him from its provisions, leading to the administrative complaint filed on February 4, 2010.

Respondent's Defense

Atty. Molina's response characterized the complaint as a minor neighborhood dispute, asserting that the Times Square Preamble was a practical measure to maintain order among residents. He noted that all other unit owners, except Mr. Abreu, participated in signing the agreement, which included stipulations regarding the use of common areas and parking assignments. Atty. Molina also referenced litigation initiated by Mr. Abreu, indicating that this could demonstrate the absence of binding effects of the Preamble on his client.

Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

On August 3, 2010, the Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez recommended dismissal of the complaint based on two principal grounds: the allegations lacked substantive proof, and, even if erroneous advice was given, there was no evidence of malice or bad faith on Atty. Molina’s part. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently upheld this recommendation in a resolution dated May 14, 2011.

Motion for Reconsideration and Final Resolutions

Following the dismissal, Atty. Paguia filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on December 29, 2012. The parties were duly notified of the decision on March 21, 2013. Notably, according to Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B, Atty. Paguia was required to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court within fifteen days of notification, which he did not, resulting in the case being deemed terminated.

Evaluation of Evidence and Conclusion

The Court assessed the need for preponderant evidence in administrative cases

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.