Rodica vs. Atty. Lazaro

In disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests on the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence; absent such proof, the complaint must be dismissed.

Jasper Junno F. Rodica was the live-in partner of William Strong, an American national arrested and detained by the Bureau of Immigration on May 5, 2011, pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice, as he was wanted in Brazil for conspiracy to commit fraud and related crimes. Strong engaged the M.M. Lazaro and Associates Law Office through a mutual friend, Philip Apostol, to handle his deportation case, offering a success fee of US$100,000.00. Separately, Rodica had filed a civil case for recovery of possession and damages before the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, against Hillview Marketing Corporation and others, involving a 353-square-meter Boracay property. Atty. Joseph Tan, one of the respondents in the disbarment complaint, was counsel for Hillview in that RTC case.

On May 5, 2011, William Strong, an American national, was arrested and detained by operatives of the Bureau of Immigration pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice, as he was wanted in Brazil for conspiracy to commit fraud and related crimes involving illegal securities. Strong sought the assistance of his friend and neighbor, Philip Apostol, who referred him to Atty. Manuel "Lolong" Lazaro, a partner at the M.M. Lazaro and Associates Law Office. Atty. Manuel initially declined, as his office only handled cases of retained clients and those known to him or his associates, but was eventually prevailed upon by Apostol as a special favor. Atty. Manuel, together with senior associate Atty. Abel Almario and junior associate Atty. Edwin Espejo, met Strong at the Bureau of Immigration's Taguig Detention Center. During the meeting, Strong offered a success fee of US$100,000.00 for the expedited processing of his release and departure from the Philippines, and Atty. Manuel agreed to handle the case.

Strong mentioned during the meeting that he had a property in Boracay and suspected his neighbors of causing his arrest. He disclosed that his live-in partner, Jasper Junno F. Rodica, had filed a complaint before the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, for recovery of possession and damages against Hillview Marketing Corporation, its president Stephanie Dornau, the Alargo Park Neighborhood Association, Inc., and spouses Robert and Judy Gregoire, in connection with a 353-square-meter Boracay property. Strong and Rodica had been trying to sell the property but could not find buyers because of the pending case; they had even offered it to Apostol, who was hesitant due to the litigation. Rodica arrived toward the end of the meeting, and Strong described her as his "handyman" who would act as his liaison. Rodica later alleged that during one of her meetings with the lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office, she hinted that Atty. Joseph Tan — a senior partner at the Marcos Ochoa Serapio Tan and Associates law firm and counsel for Hillview and Dornau in the RTC case — was instrumental in Strong's immigration case. She claimed that Atty. Manuel called Atty. Tan, who allegedly admitted having initiated the immigration case, threatened to harm Rodica and her family, and demanded that she withdraw the RTC case as part of a settlement package.

On May 25, 2011, the Bureau of Immigration rendered a Judgment granting Strong's motion to voluntarily leave the country. Strong departed the Philippines on May 31, 2011. On June 6, 2011, Rodica filed with the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw her Motion for Reconsideration in the civil case, which the RTC granted on June 14, 2011. Rodica thereafter claimed that she heard nothing from the Lazaro Law Office and that, contrary to her expectations, there was no "simultaneous over-all settlement" of her grievances with the defendants in the RTC case. Believing she had been deceived, she filed the disbarment complaint, alleging that the respondent lawyers misrepresented that the withdrawal of the RTC case was only the first step in a settlement package, extorted more than ₱7 million from her for legal fees and penalties, used the money as pay-offs to immigration and government officials and to Atty. Tan, denied her status as their client, and submitted concocted stories to the RTC. The respondents denied the allegations, asserting that the Lazaro Law Office was engaged solely for Strong's deportation case, that the RTC case had already been dismissed on March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action before Strong was even arrested, and that Rodica withdrew the RTC case to facilitate the sale of the Boracay property to Apostol. Atty. Espejo admitted that he drafted and signed the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw at Rodica's request, including the names of the Lazaro Law Office and of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle without their knowledge or consent, out of friendship and a desire to help Rodica make the property more saleable.

• Deceit and Misrepresentation: Rodica argued that the respondent lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office misrepresented to her that the withdrawal of her RTC case was only the first step in an over-all settlement package resolving all her differences with her legal adversaries, when no such settlement existed.
• Extortion of Legal Fees: Rodica claimed that the Lazaro Law Office extorted from her more than ₱7 million for alleged professional and legal fees and penalties in connection with Strong's immigration case, which amounts were allegedly used as pay-offs to immigration, police, and Malacañang officials as well as to Atty. Tan.
• Denial of Client Status: Rodica faulted the respondent lawyers for shamelessly denying her status as their client in order to evade responsibility to her.
• Concocted Stories: Rodica alleged that the respondents submitted fabricated stories to the RTC of Kalibo to conceal the truth and avoid accountability.
• Atty. Tan's Participation: Rodica alleged that Atty. Tan acted as a willing partner of Atty. Manuel by serving as a conduit to his Malacañang patron in causing Strong's arrest and in packaging the conditions for Strong's voluntary deportation.
• Violation of Lawyer's Oath: Rodica asserted that the respondents violated their oath as attorneys, particularly the provisions to obey the laws, do no falsehood, delay no man for money or malice, and observe fidelity to the courts and to clients.

• No Communication with Atty. Tan: Attys. Almario and Espejo denied that Atty. Manuel spoke with Atty. Tan during their meeting with Rodica, or that Atty. Tan and Dornau's group were behind Strong's arrest and detention.
• No Connection Between Cases: Attys. Almario and Espejo disputed that the withdrawal of the RTC case was a condition for Strong's departure, pointing out that the withdrawal was filed nine days after the Bureau of Immigration's Judgment and three days after Strong left the country.
• Withdrawal for Property Sale: Respondents argued that Rodica withdrew the RTC case because it was one of the conditions set by Apostol before purchasing the Boracay property, and that the case had already been dismissed on March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action.
• Atty. Manuel's Position: Atty. Manuel contended that none of the Lazaro Law Office lawyers communicated with Atty. Tan regarding the deportation or the RTC case, that the two cases were incongruous, and that the RTC case had already been dismissed before the Lazaro Law Office was engaged.
• Atty. Tan's Defense: Atty. Tan argued that the allegations against him were double hearsay, based on information allegedly relayed from Atty. Manuel to Rodica. He denied any participation in the withdrawal of the RTC case or in Strong's arrest and deportation, noting that the chronology of events — Strong's deportation preceding the filing of the withdrawal motion — contradicted Rodica's claim. He also pointed out that he had already obtained a favorable ruling in the RTC case before Strong was arrested, and that Strong was not a party to the RTC case.
• Atty. Espejo's Admission: Atty. Espejo admitted drafting and signing the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw at Rodica's request, including the firm name and the names of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle without their knowledge or consent, but claimed he did so out of friendship and a desire to help Rodica make the Boracay property more saleable.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the allegations in Rodica's Complaint merit the disbarment or suspension of the respondents.
• Settlement Package Claim: Whether Rodica was deceived into believing that the withdrawal of the RTC case was part of a settlement package.
• Extortion Claim: Whether Rodica paid more than ₱7 million to the Lazaro Law Office as alleged.
• Client Status: Whether Rodica was a client of the Lazaro Law Office.
• Atty. Espejo's Conduct: Whether Atty. Espejo's act of drafting and signing the withdrawal pleading using the firm's name and the names of senior partners without their knowledge or consent constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The complaint was dismissed, the totality of evidence presented by Rodica having failed to overcome the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the respondents.
• Settlement Package Claim: No. The claim was devoid of merit, as the chronology of events showed no relation between the deportation case and the withdrawal of the RTC case, and the evidence showed Rodica withdrew the case to facilitate the sale of the Boracay property to Apostol.
• Extortion Claim: No. The documentary evidence — four statements of account totaling US$15,250.00 — was far less than ₱7 million in peso equivalent, and the passbook entries merely showed withdrawals without proving payment to the Lazaro Law Office.
• Client Status: No. Rodica was not a client of the Lazaro Law Office; the firm was engaged solely by Strong for his deportation case, and Rodica was represented by separate counsel in the RTC case.
• Atty. Espejo's Conduct: Yes, warranting a warning. Atty. Espejo fell short of expected standards by signing a pleading using the firm's name and the names of senior partners without their knowledge or consent, but considering his recent admission to the Bar (2010) and prior expression of remorse, he was warned rather than suspended.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: In disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests on the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence, as reiterated in Siao vs. Atty. De Guzman, Jr. Preponderance of evidence means the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence continues and the complaint must be dismissed. The totality of Rodica's evidence failed to overcome this presumption.

• Settlement Package Claim: Rodica's assertions that Atty. Tan orchestrated Strong's arrest and that Atty. Manuel proposed the withdrawal of the RTC case to facilitate Strong's deportation were mere allegations without proof. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence. The records showed that Strong's arrest was pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice issued in February 2008, and that Atty. Tan had already obtained a favorable judgment in the RTC case before Strong was arrested. The chronology of undisputed events — the RTC case was dismissed on March 29, 2011; Strong was arrested on May 5, 2011; the Bureau of Immigration granted Strong's motion on May 25, 2011; Strong left on May 31, 2011; and Rodica's withdrawal motion was filed only on June 6, 2011 — showed no relation between the deportation case and the withdrawal of the RTC case. It would be specious to conclude that the withdrawal was a pre-condition to Strong's deportation. Moreover, Atty. Manuel was presumed to have regularly performed his duties as an officer of the court, and absent competent evidence to the contrary, was presumed to have worked out his client's release in accordance with proper procedures. The evidence showed that Rodica withdrew the RTC case to facilitate the sale of the Boracay property to Apostol, who had conditioned his purchase on the property being free of pending litigation. The RTC itself found Rodica to be an intelligent woman not easily swayed or manipulated, and noted that Strong was not a party to the RTC case and his affairs could not dictate its outcome.

• Extortion Claim: Rodica presented four statements of account from the Lazaro Law Office totaling US$15,250.00, which at the prevailing exchange rate was far less than ₱7 million. The statements of account actually supported Atty. Manuel's contention that Strong failed to fully pay the US$100,000.00 success fee. The photocopies of Rodica's dollar savings account passbook merely established that she made withdrawals, but did not constitute competent proof that the amounts withdrawn were paid to the Lazaro Law Office.

• Client Status: Rodica admitted in her own Sworn Affidavit that Atty. Manuel and his assistants were engaged by William Strong to handle his immigration case. All billings of the Lazaro Law Office pertained to the immigration case, not the RTC case. The RTC case had been filed and dismissed before Strong engaged the Lazaro Law Office, Strong was not a party to the RTC case, and Rodica's counsel of record in the RTC case was Atty. Joan Ibutnande, not the Lazaro Law Office. Nothing on record showed that Attys. Manuel, Michelle, or Almario had any participation in the RTC case.

• Atty. Espejo's Conduct: Atty. Espejo admitted drafting and signing the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw, indicating the Lazaro Law Office's name and the names of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle without their knowledge or consent. He was aware that Rodica was represented by counsel in the RTC case, and thus could not be considered defenseless or oppressed within the meaning of Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His claim of merely assisting a friend deserved scant consideration, as motions and pleadings are acted upon based on their merit, not on the reputation of the law firm filing them. By including the firm's name and the names of senior partners, he assisted Rodica in misrepresenting to the RTC that she was represented by the Lazaro Law Office. As an officer of the court, he was expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. However, considering that he was newly admitted to the Bar (2010) and had already expressed remorse and filed a Motion to Withdraw Appearance before the disbarment complaint was filed, the Court deemed it proper to warn him rather than impose a heavier sanction.

• Presumption of Innocence in Disbarment Proceedings — Lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence in disbarment or suspension proceedings, and the burden of proof rests on the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence. In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence continues and the complaint must be dismissed. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that Rodica's evidence — consisting largely of bare allegations unsupported by documentary proof — was insufficient to overcome the presumption.

• Preponderance of Evidence — Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other, evaluated under Section 1 of Rule 133 considering all facts and circumstances, the witnesses' manner of testifying and credibility, their interest or lack thereof, and the number of witnesses. The Court applied this standard and found Rodica's evidence wanting, as her claims were belied by the documentary records and the chronology of events.

• Mere Allegation Is Not Evidence — The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. The Court invoked this principle to reject Rodica's claims of a settlement package and Atty. Tan's orchestration of Strong's arrest, as she failed to present even an iota of evidence beyond her bare assertions.

• Presumption of Regular Performance — An officer of the court is presumed to regularly perform the duties imposed upon him by his oath as a lawyer and by the Code of Professional Responsibility, absent competent evidence to the contrary. The Court applied this presumption in favor of Atty. Manuel, finding no evidence that he deviated from proper procedures in securing his client's release and deportation.

• "The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons." — Opening quotation of the Resolution, articulating the foundational principle governing the exercise of the Court's disciplinary power over members of the Bar.

• "In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer continues and the complaint against him must be dismissed." — States the controlling rule on the burden of proof in disbarment proceedings and the consequence of the complainant's failure to discharge that burden.

• "It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to Rodica, he is first and foremost an officer of the court." — Defines the primacy of a lawyer's duty to the court over personal relationships, applied to hold Atty. Espejo accountable for signing a pleading without his superiors' consent.

• Siao vs. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011 — Controlling precedent cited for the proposition that in disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests on the complainant to prove allegations by preponderant evidence.

• People vs. Cabodoc, 331 Phil. 491 (1996) — Cited for the presumption that an officer of the court regularly performs the duties imposed by his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, applied in favor of Atty. Manuel.

• Villanueva vs. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., G.R. No. 164437, May 15, 2009 — Cited for the principle that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof, applied to reject Rodica's unsupported claims.

• Atty. Dela Cruz vs. Atty. Diesmos, 528 Phil. 927 (2006) — Cited in support of the rule that absent preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer continues and the complaint must be dismissed.

• Section 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court — Provides the factors for determining preponderance of evidence: all facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying and credibility, their interest or lack thereof, and the number of witnesses. Applied as the standard for evaluating whether Rodica's evidence overcame the respondents' presumption of innocence.

• Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2, Code of Professional Responsibility — Rule 2.01 provides that a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed; Rule 2.02 provides that even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to safeguard the person's rights. The Court invoked these rules to reject Atty. Espejo's justification for drafting Rodica's pleading, holding that Rodica was not defenseless or oppressed as she was represented by counsel in the RTC case.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred in the Resolution.