SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020
SPOUSES DARITO P. NOCUENCA AND LUCILLE B. NOCUENCA, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. ALFREDO T. BENSI, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Spouses Darito P. Nocuenca (Darito) and Lucille B. Nocuenca (Lucille, collectively complainants) filed this complaint1 for disbarment against respondent, Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi (Atty. Bensi), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Complainants alleged that Atty. Bensi violated Rule 1.01,2 Canon 13 and Rule 10.01,4 Canon 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as the Lawyer's Oath when he assaulted the complainants in an effort to prevent them from entering a disputed property. Complainants further averred that Atty. Bensi filed a criminal case against them based on false allegations.
The Complainants' Position
Complainants alleged that the present case originated from Civil Case No. 6143-L,6 an action for Declaratory Relief, Reformation of Contract, Recovery of Possession of a Portion of a Property, Cancellation of Tax Declaration, Damages, and Attorney's Fees, filed by plaintiffs-spouses Restituto Bensi and Dominga F. Bensi (plaintiffs) against Atty. Bensi and other defendants therein. The plaintiffs are the parents of Lucille.
On January 25, 2007, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Lapu-Lapu City, rendered a Partial Summary Judgment7 declaring plaintiffs to be the lawful owners of a 428.8-square-meter portion of Lot No. 1499-C.8 This portion of the disputed lot serves as a site for a Catholic chapel. Complainants claimed that they inherited the said portion after the death of Lucille's parents.
Complainants alleged that on June 5, 2013, in the course of exercising their right of ownership over the portion of the disputed lot, they went to the chapel to post a sign that reads, "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING"9 but they were assaulted and clobbered by Atty. Bensi and his son. Due to the incident, complainants filed two (2) counts of Slight Physical Injuries against Atty. Bensi and his son before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Lapu-Lapu City.
Shortly after the incident, complainants went to the chapel to reopen it for religious purposes and for the benefit of the community. However, they were shocked when they discovered that the altar was tom down and all religious articles were thrown out. Complainants believed that these were done at the behest of Atty. Bensi.
On August 28, 2013, Atty. Bensi filed a criminal case for Trespass to Property with Physical Injuries against the complainants. According to complainants, the criminal case was anchored on false and fabricated accusations. Ultimately, the case was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor in an October 8, 2013 Resolution for lack of merit.
Complainants argued that the physical injuries they suffered at the hands of Atty. Bensi clearly fell within the ambit of unlawful conduct proscribed by Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. Moreover, they claimed that the criminal case contained false accusations in violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath thereby warranting the penalty of disbarment.10
Complainants pointed out that the Court, in a previous administrative case, had already reprimanded Atty. Bensi.
The Respondent's Position
On the other hand, Atty. Bensi claimed that the bigger portion of Lot No. 1499-C is owned by his late parents and that the same had not yet been partitioned by the heirs.
Atty. Bensi claimed that on June 5, 2013, complainant Darito brought a hammer and a flat bar which were used as a chisel to forcibly open the padlocked gate of the chapel. As the caretaker of the property, Atty. Bensi asked the complainants from whom did they ask permission to open the closed gate.11 This resulted in a heated confrontation where Lucille rushed and attacked Atty. Bensi while shouting, "P*TANG INA NINYO, WALANG HIYA KAYO!"12 Atty. Bensi fell down on the floor of the chapel. His son rushed inside and held the hands of Lucille. Thereafter, Atty. Bensi's son picked up a plastic handle of an umbrella and struck the head of Lucille while Darito went outside to gather rocks and threw the same at Atty. Bensi. Fortunately, he was not hit.
Because of the incident, complainants filed two (2) counts of Slight Physical Injuries against Atty. Bensi and his son. Atty. Bensi, for his part, filed a criminal case for Trespass to Property with Physical Injuries against the complainants.
On February 13, 2015, the complainants filed the present administrative case for disbarment.
On April 15, 2015, Atty. Bensi filed his Answer with Urgent and Earnest Motion to Issue a Subpoena Duces Tecum13 against the complainants.
On May 25, 2015, the Investigating Commissioner issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference14 directing the parties to appear on June 18, 2015 and to submit their Mandatory Conference Brief at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled date of conference.
On June 15, 2015, the complainants filed their Mandatory Conference Brief.15 Only the complainants appeared during the mandatory conference on June 18, 2015.
On September 23, 2015, the next mandatory conference, only Lucille appeared. Atty. Bensi failed to appear the second time. On the same day, however, Atty. Bensi filed his Mandatory Conference Brief.16
On November 27, 2015, Atty. Bensi filed a Motion to Conduct Clarificatory Hearing,17 which motion was denied by the Investigating Commissioner.
Report and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
In her Report and Recommendation 18 dated June 13, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Suzette A. Mamon (Commissioner Mamon) recommended that Atty. Bensi be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days.
Commissioner Mamon found that:
In the instant case, there were findings of probable cause against respondent with his son for slight physical injuries which Were duly filed in Court. While it can be said that the crime of slight physical injuries is not one which can be classified as a crime involving moral turpitude, more so that there has yet no conviction on the part [of the] herein respondent, it must be emphasized that lawyers must behave within the tenets of morality and good moral character. x x x19
RESOLVED to REVERSE the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and instead, recommend that the case against Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi be Dismissed considering that respondent was in possession of the property and that the aggressive behavior of the complainant triggered the altercation.22
Besides, the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance of evidence — is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case law elucidates, "[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. x x x"
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
4 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
5 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
6Rollo, pp. 130-140.
7Id. at 141 -142; issued by Presiding Judge Benedicto G. Cobarde.
8Id. at 5.
9Id.
10Id. at 4.
11Id. at 40.
12Id.
13Id. at 37-47.
14Id. at 68.
15Id. at 69-73.
16Id. at 81-92.
17Id. at 153-157.
18Id., unpaginated.
19Id.
20Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
x x x x
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged[.]
21Rollo, unpaginared.
22Rollo, unpaginated.
23Goopio v. Maglalang, A.C. No. 10555, July 31, 2018.
24Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin, A.C. Nos. 10758-61, December 5, 2017, 847 SCRA 472, 297.
25Rollo, unpaginated.
26 794 Phil. 360, 379 (2016).
27Supra note 24 at 495-496.