Robiñol v. Bassig
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Carlina Robiñol alleged that respondent Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig rented a house from her for two years at ₱8,500.00 monthly rental. Atty. Bassig failed to pay the stipulated advance and deposit, paid rents belatedly, and eventually stopped paying from March 2012 onwards. He left the premises due to a typhoon without informing the complainant or settling his obligation. Subsequently, he executed a promissory note dated August 18, 2012, promising to pay ₱127,500.00 on installment, but reneged on this promise. Complainant hired counsel, and a demand letter was sent. Procedural History: In his unverified answer, Atty. Bassig acknowledged his obligation and cited financial difficulties. However, he failed to appear in mandatory conferences scheduled by the IBP-CBD. His answer was expunged for lack of verification. The IBP-CBD recommended a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, noting a previous suspension against Atty. Bassig. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Bassig.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant discharged the burden of proof to establish Atty. Bassig's non-payment of rent. Whether Atty. Bassig's failure to file a verified answer and attend mandatory conferences constitutes an admission of the allegations. Whether Atty. Bassig is administratively liable for his failure to abide by the orders of the IBP.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof for the disbarment based on non-payment of rent due to the inadmissibility of photocopied evidence. However, Atty. Bassig was found liable for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his repeated failure to abide by the orders of the IBP. He was ordered to pay a fine of ₱10,000.00 with a stern warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-payment of rent: The Court held that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in disbarment proceedings. The evidence presented, consisting of photocopies of receipts and a promissory note, were inadmissible as secondary evidence because the complainant did not lay the predicate for their admission by proving the unavailability of the originals. Thus, aside from bare allegations, no admissible evidence proved Atty. Bassig's failure to pay rent or that he leased the house. On the issue of failure to file a verified answer and attend conferences: The Court clarified that while Atty. Bassig's failure to file a verified answer and attend mandatory conferences had consequences as per the IBP Rules of Procedure, such omissions do not automatically constitute an admission of the allegations in the complaint. The rules state that non-appearance leads to ex parte proceedings and unverified pleadings are given no weight, but this does not equate to an admission of guilt for the main charges. On the issue of violation of IBP orders: The Court found Atty. Bassig liable for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Despite due notice, he repeatedly failed to comply with the orders of the IBP, including filing a verified answer and a position paper, and appearing in mandatory conferences. This conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for the IBP's rules, regulations, and its institution as a body empowered by the Supreme Court to conduct disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. Lawyers are officers of the court and are expected to obey court orders and processes, and Atty. Bassig's disregard for the IBP's directives was unbecoming of a lawyer.
Main Doctrine
While the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof for the disbarment based on non-payment of rent due to inadmissible photocopied evidence, the respondent lawyer is liable for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his repeated failure to abide by the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), warranting a fine.