11/10/2015

A.C. No. 9881

TodayisTuesday,November10,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
A.C.No.9881June4,2014
(FormerlyCBD102607)
ATTY.ALANF.PAGUIA,Petitioner,
vs.
ATTY.MANUELT.MOLINA,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
SERENO,CJ:
ForresolutionbythisCourtisthedismissalbytheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)BoardofGovernorsofthe
administrativeComplaintforDISHONESTYagainstrespondent,Atty.ManuelMolina.Atty.Molinaallegedlyadvised
hisclientstoenforceacontractonthecomplainant'sclientwhohadneverbeenapartytotheagreement.
Thefactsareasfollows:
The case involves a conflict between neighbors in a fourunit compound named "Times Square" at Times Street,
QuezonCity.Theneighborsarethefollowing:1)Mr.AndMrs.GregorioM.Abreu,clientsofAtty.Paguia2)Mr.And
Mrs.WilsonLim,clientsofrespondentMolina3)Dr.andMrs.EduardoYapandDr.BelindaSanJuan.
The clients of Atty. Molina entered into a contract with the other unit owners save for Mr. Abreu. The agreement,
covered by a document titled "Times Square Preamble," establishes a set of internal rules for the neighbors on
matterssuchastheuseofthecommonrightofwaytotheexitgate,assignmentofparkingareas,andsecurity.Mr.
Abreu,theclientofcomplainant,Atty.Paguia,wasnotapartytothecontractsincetheformerdidnotagreewiththe
termsconcerningtheparkingarrangements.
On 4 February 2010, Atty. Paguia filed a Complaint for Dishonesty1 with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
against Atty. Molina2 for allegedly giving legal advice to the latters clients to the effect that the Times Square
PreamblewasbindingonMr.Abreu,whowasneverapartytothecontract.
In his Answer,3 Atty. Molina downplayed the case as a petty quarrel among neighbors. He maintained that the
Times Square Preamble4 was entered into for purposes of maintaining order in the residential compound. All
homeowners,exceptMr.Abreu,signedthedocument.5
RespondentfurtherstatedinhisAnswerthatMr.andMrs.GregorioAbreufiledtwocasesagainsthisclients,Mr.
AndMrs.WilliamLim,onthebeliefthatMr.AbreuwasnotboundbytheTimesSquarePreamble.Thefirstcase,
was filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), which was an action to declare the Times
SquarePreambleinvalid.Thesecondsuitwasanactionfordeclaratoryrelief.Bothcases,accordingtorespondent,
weredismissed.6
Respondentfurtherclaimedthatanothercasehadbeenfiledincourt,thistimebyhisclient,theLims.Theywere
prompted to file a suit since Mr. Abreu had allegedly taken matters into his own hands by placing two vehicles
directly in front of the gate of the Lims, thus blocking the latters egress to Times Street. The Lims filed with the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch96,QuezonCity,aComplaintforInjunctionandDamages,coupledwithaprayerfor
the immediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, which was docketed as
CivilCaseNo.Q0863579.Accordingtorespondent,theRTCgrantedthereliefprayedforinanOrderdated12
December2008.7
Atty.MolinaconcludedthattheabovefactssufficientlyservedashisanswertotheComplaint.
On3August2010,InvestigatingCommissionerVictorC.FernandezrenderedaReportandRecommendation.He
recommendeddismissalforlackofmerit,basedonthefollowinggrounds:1)thecomplaintconsistedonlyofbare
allegations and 2) even assuming that respondent Molina gave an erroneous legal advice, he could not be held
accountableintheabsenceofproofofmaliceorbadfaith.8
On 14 May 2011, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIX2011210, adopting and approving the
ReportandRecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner.9
Atty.PaguiafiledaMotionforReconsiderationdated2August2011,butwasdeniedbytheIBPBoardofGovernors
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html

1/3

11/10/2015

A.C. No. 9881

10

on29December2012. Noticesofthedenialwerereceivedbythepartieson21March2013.11
NopetitionforreviewhasbeenfiledwiththisCourt.
ItisworthnotingthatacaseisdeemedterminatedifthecomplainantdoesnotfileapetitionwiththeSupremeCourt
withinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeoftheBoardsresolution.ThisruleisderivedfromSection12(c)ofRule139B,
whichstates:
(c)IftherespondentisexoneratedbytheBoardorthedisciplinarysanctionimposedbyitislessthansuspensionor
disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested
partyfiledwiththeSupremeCourtwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeoftheBoardsresolution,theSupremeCourt
ordersotherwise.(Underscoringsupplied)
Inthiscase,Atty.PaguiareceivednoticeoftheBoardsresolutionon21March2013,asevidencedbyaregistry
returnreceipt.Tothisdate,thisCourthasyettoreceiveapetitionforreviewfromAtty.Paguia.Thus,forhisfailure
to file a petition for review with the Court within 15 days, this case is deemed terminated pursuant to the above
mentionedSection12(c).
Nevertheless,wehavegoneovertherecordsbutwehavenoreasontodeviatefromthefindingsoftheIBPBoard
ofGovernors.
Whenitcomestoadministrativecasesagainstlawyers,twothingsaretobeconsidered:quantumofproof,which
requiresclearlypreponderantevidenceandburdenofproof,whichisonthecomplainant.12
In the present case, we find that the Complaint is without factual basis. Complainant Atty. Paguia charges Atty.
MolinawithprovidinglegaladvicetothelattersclientstotheeffectthattheTimesSquarePreambleisbindingon
complainants client, Mr. Abreu, who was not a signatory to the agreement. The allegation of giving legal advice,
however,wasnotsubstantiatedinthiscase,eitherinthecomplaintorinthecorrespondinghearings.Nowheredo
therecordsstatethatAtty.Paguiasawrespondentgivingthelegaladvicetotheclientsofthelatter.Bareallegations
arenotproof.13
EvenifweassumethatAtty.Molinadidprovidehisclientslegaladvice,hestillcannotbeheldadministrativelyliable
withoutanyshowingthathisactwasattendedwithbadfaithormalice.Theruleonmistakescommittedbylawyers
intheexerciseoftheirprofessionisasfollows:
Anattorneyatlawisnotexpectedtoknowallthelaw.Foranhonestmistakeorerror,anattorneyisnotliable.Chief
Justice Abbott said that, no attorney is bound to know all the law God forbid that it should be imagined that an
attorneyoracounsel,orevenajudge,isboundtoknowallthelaw.xxx.14
Thedefaultruleispresumptionofgoodfaith.Ontheotherhand,badfaithisneverpresumed. Itisaconclusionto
bedrawnfromfacts.Itsdeterminationisthusaquestionoffactandisevidentiary.15Thereisnoevidence,though,to
show that the legal advice, assuming it was indeed given, was coupled with bad faith, malice, or illwill. The
presumptionofgoodfaith,therefore,standsinthiscase.
1wphi1

Theforegoingconsidered,complainantfailedtoprovehiscasebyclearpreponderanceofevidence.
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and approving the Decision of the
InvestigatingCommissionerisherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice,Chairperson
WECONCUR:
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

Footnotes
1

DocketedasCBDCaseNo.102607.

Rollo,pp.27.

Idat2327Filedon5March2010.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html

2/3

11/10/2015

A.C. No. 9881

4

Id.at814.

Id.at24.Answer,p.2.

Idat2425.

Id.at25.

Id.at8992.

Id.at88.

10

Id.at87.

11

Id.at9697.

12

DeZuzuarreguiJr.v.Soguilon,589Phil.64(2008).

13

Realv.Bello,513SCRA111.

14

Id.

15

Magalingvs.PeterOng,G.R.No.173333,13August2008,562SCRA152.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html

3/3