SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 12044, July 23, 2018
MARTIN J. SIOSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before this Court is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by complainant Martin J. Sioson (Sioson) against respondent Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. (Atty. Apoya, Jr.).
On February 20, 2014 at around 10 a.m., I went personally to Docket Section of the Department of Justice to check the status of my case entitled Martin Jimenez Sioson, [et al.] vs. Analiza Sioson, [et al.] docketed as XV-10-INV-12E-00273. Upon inquiry with the said unit, I was surprised to know that there was no pleading filed by you before the said office, not even a Notice of Entry of Appearance. I immediately texted you and you did not even bothered (sic) to reply. As far as I can remember, when you accepted my case on November 27, 2013, you informed me that you will file a manifestation before the Honorable Office, however, up to this date, there was none.On April 4, 2014, Sioson filed a Verified Complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP), praying that Atty. Apoya, Jr. be disciplined and be disbarred from the practice of law.
With this, I would like to ask for the return of the amount of Pesos: Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) which you asked from me as an acceptance fee and received by you on the same date, five (5) days upon receipt hereof. Likewise, I would like to ask for you to return all the documents I sent to you pertaining to my case so I could look for another Legal Counsel, to handle my case efficiently and effectively. Otherwise, I will be constrained to file a Disbarment Case against you before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for violation of"Canon Code" specifically Canons 16 and 18.3
2. That there is no Attorney Client relationship, exist (sic) between the respondent and the complainant in this case. Respondent came to surprised when he received an order requiring him to file an answer with respect to the complaint of herein alleged complainant.On July 9, 2014, the CBD-IBP issued a Notice setting the mandatory conference/hearing of the subject complaint on August 13, 2014.6
3. That sometimes on March 7, 2014 the said Martin J. Sioson had sent a letter address[ed] to the respondent asking for the return of the documents and money in the amount of P10,000.00 which he allegedly stated in his letter that respondent received from him as Acceptance fee to handled his case Qualified Theft against Analiza Sioson. That in his letter there is also a threat that if respondent refused to return the documents and money he will be constrained to file a disbarment case against the respondent. Respondent respectfully stressed that he never had an occasion to met herein complainant. Respondent never received any amount from the complainant representing as acceptance fee. Respondent likewise never received any documents (sic) from the complainant pertaining to the case Qualified Theft he mentioned in his letter. That there is absolutely no attorney-client relationship exist (sic) between the respondent and the complainant in this case. Thus, respondent felt a (sic) coercion and threat with respect to the said letter came from the complainant for compelling respondent to return something which he did not received (sic) from the complainant and threatening to harm and or (sic) filing an administrative against the respondent. Consequently, respondent filed Criminal Complaint (sic) GRAVE THREATS and GRAVE COERCION against the complainant before the office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City.5
Thus, we find the confluence of the evidence submitted by the complainant to have clearly, convincingly and satisfactorily shown that indeed the respondent has authored this reprehensible act. Respondent committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Petition for Review and pocketing the amount of P10,000.00.Commissioner Aguilera did not give credence to Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s defense of denial:
Respondent even went to the extent of denying that the meat of the allegation is baseless and no such evidence could prove of the existence of the valued [lawyer-client] relationship. After he was asked to return the documents and money, he made himself scarce. He ignored all communications sent to him by the complainant. After the disbarment complaint was filed, he was firm and compose thereafter he file his answer. He totally disregarded the bone of contention and faced everything through the assertion of complete denial.14
Moreover, the undersigned cannot believe that complainant merely made up a case of evasion of clear duty by respondent to hold the latter liable for professional misconduct. On the other hand, respondent could have easily submitted the affidavits of his mother Lolita Apoya and/or that of Juvy Paghel to controvert the complainant's claims had he not taken his professional engagement seriously.15The dispositive portion of Commissioner Aguilera's Report and Recommendation reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. And is ordered to return the amount of P10,000.00 paid by to(sic) the complaint(sic).On February 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution17 adopting and approving the findings and recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Aguilera, thus:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.16
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03, Canon 18 and Rule 18.03, Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and Ordered to Return the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.18Atty. Apoya, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration19 asserting that the February 20, 2015 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors was based on a misapprehension of facts. Atty. Apoya, Jr. insisted that he never met Sioson on November 27, 2013, the day Sioson supposedly engaged his services. He averred that he never ignored the February 20, 2014 and March 7, 2014 letters from Sioson. In fact, he immediately filed criminal cases for Grave Threats and Grave Coercion against Sioson because of the latter's scheme to use the instant administrative case as leverage for the criminal cases respondent Apoya, Jr. filed against Sioson.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and abide by the law, and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the same.23 A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law.24 Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful.25 To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.26
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
x x x x
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-12.
2 Id. at 8.
3 Id. at 10.
4 Id. at 13.
5 Id. at 15.
6 Id. at 34.
7 Id. at 41-44.
8 Id. at 36-39.
9 Id. at 40.
10 Id. at 48-50.
11 Id. at 55.
12 Id. at 56-72, 73-102.
13 Id. at 167-177.
14 Id. at 171.
15 Id. at 172.
16 Id. at 177.
17 Id. at 104.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 155-159.
20 Id. at 163-164.
21 Id. at 145-148.
22 Id. at 161-162.
23Maniquiz v. Emelo, A.C. No. 8968, September 26, 2017, p. 4.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr., 392 Phil. 394, 402 (2000).
27Schulz v. Flores, 462 Phil. 601, 612 (2003).
28 493 Phil. 24 (2005).
29 545 Phil. 226 (2007).
30 518 Phil. 378 (2006).