Armilla-Calderon v. Lapore
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Eliza Armilla-Calderon alleged that respondent Atty. Arnel L. Lapore facilitated fraudulent sales of her property. She claimed her signature on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 8, 2012, was forged as she was in Rizal at the time. She further alleged Atty. Lapore falsified another Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 10, 2013, to make it appear her mother sold the property to Charity Reinwald, complainant's niece. Complainant suggested Atty. Lapore took advantage of her absence and exploited her aged mother and dying father. Procedural History: The complaint for disbarment was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) scheduled a Mandatory Conference, but neither party appeared. In a subsequent hearing, only Atty. Lapore appeared. The IBP-CBD terminated the conference due to the complainant's failure to attend and directed the submission of position papers, which only Atty. Lapore complied with. Investigating Commissioner Dominica L. Dumangeng-Rosario recommended the revocation of Atty. Lapore's notarial commission, disqualification from reappointment for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for two months. The Petition: The IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) reversed the Investigating Commissioner's recommendations and dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant failed to substantiate her claims and that the Deed of Absolute Sale, being notarized, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The complainant appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court, essentially arguing that Atty. Lapore should be held administratively liable for the complained acts.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Lapore should be held administratively liable for the complained acts against him.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors and resolved to dismiss the complaint against Atty. Arnel L. Lapore for lack of prima facie case to warrant the penalty of disbarment or the revocation of his notarial commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Atty. Lapore should be held administratively liable: The Court held that Atty. Lapore should not be held administratively liable. It reiterated that in administrative complaints for disbarment and suspension, the required quantum of proof is clear and preponderant evidence, and the onus probandi lies on the complainant. The Court found that the complainant merely alleged that Atty. Lapore facilitated fictitious sales and failed to present any proof of forgery in her signature or the authenticity of her father's thumb mark. The complainant could have submitted documents for expert analysis but failed to do so. Furthermore, she failed to attend the mandatory hearings before the IBP-CBD and did not inform it of any change in address. The Court emphasized that bare allegations cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity accorded to lawyers. The notarized Deed of Absolute Sale carries the presumption of regularity, and the burden of proving forgery lies on the party assailing its execution, a burden the complainant failed to discharge. The Court also noted that allegations of forgery or falsification must be competently proved in appropriate proceedings, like criminal or civil cases, and a disbarment proceeding is not the occasion to determine such issues. Absent any showing that Atty. Lapore acted in a manner rendering him unfit to practice law, the complaint must fail.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that in administrative cases against lawyers, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations with clear and preponderant evidence. Mere allegations, suspicions, or assumptions are insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to members of the Bar. The Court emphasized that the burden is not satisfied when the complainant fails to present any proof to substantiate the claims, especially concerning allegations of forgery or falsification, which require competent proof and are not to be determined in disbarment proceedings alone.