Respondent rented a house in Marikina City from complainant for a monthly rental of PHP 8,500. The lease was without a written contract for a period of two (2) years from June 12, 2010 to August 12, 2012. They agreed that respondent shall pay one month advance and one month deposit, both of which are equivalent of one month rental payment. Respondent did not comply but paid the monthly rental from June 13, 2010 to July 13, 2010 only. He then started making late payments until he did not pay rent to complainant.
Due to Typhoon Habagat which devastated Marikina City, respondent left the rented house and did not return. Sometime later, complainant chanced upon respondent’s daughter and learned from her that respondent was living with his daughter. Complainant went to the new residence of respondent and demanded the full payment of the unpaid rental amounts. Respondent executed a promissory note but reneged on the payment.
A demand letter was sent to respondent but the latter adduced that he had a difficulty managing his finances due to his son’s medical expenses and monthly car amortizations. A mandatory conference was set but only complainant showed up.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) ordered respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years due to his failure to answer despite due notice and absence in scheduled hearings. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
Issue:
Whether respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer’s Oath
Ruling:
The Court ordered respondent to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000) with stern warning that commission of the same offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof as the evidence she submitted were inadmissible. Receipts showing payment of Atty. Bassig to Robinol and the promissory note executed and signed by Atty. Bassig were photocopies of the original.
According to Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. It was also held in Country Bankers Insurance Corp. v. Antonio Lagman that before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence of due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-production in court, and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
Respondent lawyer’s failure to file his verified answer and to attend in the scheduled mandatory conferences signified his admission of the allegations in the complaint. As stated in Section 5, Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, non-appearance of parties at the mandatory conference or at the clarificatory questioning date shall be deemed a waiver of the right to participate in the proceedings. Ex parte conference or hearings shall then be conducted. Pleadings submitted or filed which are not verified shall not be given weight by the Investigating Commissioner.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis – neither purely civil nor purely criminal.
Respondent also violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
