SOPHIA ALAWI
SOPHIA ALAWI vs. vs.ASHARY M. ALAASHARY M. ALAUYAUYA, Clerk , Clerk of Court of Court VI, Shari'a DistritVI, Shari'a Distrit Court, Marawi City Court, Marawi City A.M. !o. SDC"#$"%"P &eruar( %), *##$
A.M. !o. SDC"#$"%"P &eruar( %), *##$ &ats+
&ats+
Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a sales representative (or coordinator)
Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a sales representative (or coordinator) of E.B. illarosa ! "artners Co.,of E.B. illarosa ! "artners Co., #td. of $avao City, a real
#td. of $avao City, a real estate and housin% company. Ashari M. Alaestate and housin% company. Ashari M. Alauya is the uya is the incumbent e&ecutive cler' of court incumbent e&ecutive cler' of court ofof the th udicial Shari*a $istrict in Marawi City, +hey were classmates, and used to be friends.
the th udicial Shari*a $istrict in Marawi City, +hey were classmates, and used to be friends. t appears that throu%h Alawi*s a%ency, a contract was e&ecuted for
t appears that throu%h Alawi*s a%ency, a contract was e&ecuted for the purchase on the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of installments by Alauya of one of the housin% units belon%in% to the above mentioned firm- and in connection therewith, a housin% loan was also
the housin% units belon%in% to the above mentioned firm- and in connection therewith, a housin% loan was also %ranted to Alauya by the ational /ome Mort%a%e 0inance Corporation (/M0C).
%ranted to Alauya by the ational /ome Mort%a%e 0inance Corporation (/M0C). 1n $ecember 23, 2443, Alauya addressed a letter to the "resident of illarosa !
1n $ecember 23, 2443, Alauya addressed a letter to the "resident of illarosa ! Co. advisin% of the termination ofCo. advisin% of the termination of his contract with the company on the %rounds
his contract with the company on the %rounds that her consent was vitiated by %ross misrepresentation, deceit,that her consent was vitiated by %ross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales a%ent which made said contract void
fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales a%ent which made said contract void ab initioab initio.. Alauya sent a copy of t
Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the he letter to the ice5"resident of iice5"resident of illarosa ! Co. at San "edrollarosa ! Co. at San "edro, 6usa, Ca%ayan de 1ro City, 6usa, Ca%ayan de 1ro City.. +he envelope containin% it, and
+he envelope containin% it, and which actually went throu%h the post, bore no which actually went throu%h the post, bore no stamps. nstead at the ri%ht handstamps. nstead at the ri%ht hand corner above the description of the addressee, the
corner above the description of the addressee, the words, 7words, 7Free Postage - PD 26 Free Postage - PD 26 ,7 had been typed.,7 had been typed. 1n the same
1n the same date, Alauya also wrote to Mr. 0ermin +. date, Alauya also wrote to Mr. 0ermin +. Ar8a%a, ice5"residentAr8a%a, ice5"resident, Credit ! , Credit ! Collection 6roup of Collection 6roup of thethe ational /ome Mort%a%e 0inance Corporation (/M0C) arepudiatin% as
ational /ome Mort%a%e 0inance Corporation (/M0C) arepudiatin% as fraudulent and void his contract withfraudulent and void his contract with illarosa ! Co.- and as'in% for cancellation of
illarosa ! Co.- and as'in% for cancellation of his housin% loan in his housin% loan in connection therewith, which was payable fromconnection therewith, which was payable from salary deductions at the rate of ",99:.;; a
salary deductions at the rate of ",99:.;; a month.month.
1n learnin% of Alauya*s letter to illarosa ! Co. of $ecember 23, 2443,
1n learnin% of Alauya*s letter to illarosa ! Co. of $ecember 23, 2443, Sophia Alawi filed with the Supreme Court aSophia Alawi filed with the Supreme Court a verified complaint to which she appended
verified complaint to which she appended a copy of the letter, and of the above mentioned envelope a copy of the letter, and of the above mentioned envelope bearin% thebearin% the typewritten words, 7
typewritten words, 7Free Postage - PD 26 Free Postage - PD 26 .7.7 n that complaint, she accused Alauya of<n that complaint, she accused Alauya of< 2. 7mputation of malicious and libelous char%es
2. 7mputation of malicious and libelous char%es with no solid %rounds throu%h with no solid %rounds throu%h manifest i%norancemanifest i%norance and evident bad faith-7
and evident bad faith-7
=. 7Causin% undue in>ury to, and
=. 7Causin% undue in>ury to, and blemishin% her honor and established blemishin% her honor and established reputation-7reputation-7 9. 7?nauthori8ed en>oyment of the privile%e of
9. 7?nauthori8ed en>oyment of the privile%e of free posta%e . . .-7 andfree posta%e . . .-7 and
. ?surpation of the title of 7attorney,7 which only re%ular members of the "hilippine Bar
. ?surpation of the title of 7attorney,7 which only re%ular members of the "hilippine Bar may properlymay properly use.
use. Ruli-+
Ruli-+
+he Code of Conduct and
+he Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for "ublic 1fficials and Employees (@A 29)Ethical Standards for "ublic 1fficials and Employees (@A 29) inter aliainter alia enunciates the enunciates the State policy of promotin% a hi%h standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service.
State policy of promotin% a hi%h standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. ** Section of the Section of the
Code commands that 7(p)ublic officials and employees . .
Code commands that 7(p)ublic officials and employees . . at all times respect the ri%hts of at all times respect the ri%hts of others, and . . others, and . . refrain from doin%refrain from doin% acts contrary to law, %ood morals, %ood customs, public policy, public order, publi
acts contrary to law, %ood morals, %ood customs, public policy, public order, public safety and c safety and public interest.7public interest.7*$*$
More than More than once has this Court emphasi8ed that 7the conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an a%ency involved in once has this Court emphasi8ed that 7the conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an a%ency involved in the administration of >ustice, from the presidin% >ud%e to
the administration of >ustice, from the presidin% >ud%e to the most >unior cler', should be the most >unior cler', should be circumscribed with the heavycircumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. +heir conduct must at all
burden of responsibility. +heir conduct must at all times be characteri8ed btimes be characteri8ed by, amon% others, strict propriety and decorumy, amon% others, strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and 'eep
so as to earn and 'eep the respect of the public for the >udiciary.the respect of the public for the >udiciary.77*/*/
t does not appear to the Court
t does not appear to the Court consistent with %ood morals, %ood customs or public consistent with %ood morals, %ood customs or public policy, or respect for the ri%htspolicy, or respect for the ri%hts of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed
of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed however sincerely to be deceitful, fraudulent however sincerely to be deceitful, fraudulent or malicious, inor malicious, in e&cessively intemperate, insultin% or virulent lan%ua%e. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a
e&cessively intemperate, insultin% or virulent lan%ua%e. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a ri%ht of actionri%ht of action a%ainst Sophia Alawi. +he law reDuires that he e&ercise that ri%ht with propriety, without malice or vindictiveness, or a%ainst Sophia Alawi. +he law reDuires that he e&ercise that ri%ht with propriety, without malice or vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone- in a
undue harm to anyone- in a manner consistent with %ood morals, %ood customs, public policy, public order,manner consistent with %ood morals, %ood customs, public policy, public order, suprasupra- or - or otherwise stated, that he 7act with >ustice, %ive everyone his
otherwise stated, that he 7act with >ustice, %ive everyone his due, and observe honesty and %ood due, and observe honesty and %ood faith.7faith.7 @i%hteous @i%hteous indi%nation, or vindication of ri%ht cannot >ustify resort to vituperative lan%ua%e, or
indi%nation, or vindication of ri%ht cannot >ustify resort to vituperative lan%ua%e, or downri%ht name5callin%. Adownri%ht name5callin%. As a members a member of the Shari*a Bar and
of the Shari*a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is sub>ect to a standard an officer of a Court, Alawi is sub>ect to a standard of conduct more strin%ent than for of conduct more strin%ent than for most othermost other %overnment wor'ers. As a man of the law, he may not
%overnment wor'ers. As a man of the law, he may not use lan%ua%e which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacin%,use lan%ua%e which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacin%, or otherwise improper. As a >udicial employee, it is e&pected that he
or otherwise improper. As a >udicial employee, it is e&pected that he accord respect for the person accord respect for the person and the ri%hts of othersand the ri%hts of others at all times, and that
at all times, and that his every act and his every act and word should be characteri8ed by word should be characteri8ed by prudence, restraint, courtesyprudence, restraint, courtesy, di%nity, di%nity. /is radical. /is radical deviation from these salutary norms mi%ht perhaps be
deviation from these salutary norms mi%ht perhaps be miti%ated, but cannot be e&cused, by miti%ated, but cannot be e&cused, by his stron%ly held convictionhis stron%ly held conviction that he had been %rievously wron%ed.
that he had been %rievously wron%ed. As re%ards A
As re%ards Alauya*s use of the title olauya*s use of the title of 7Attorneyf 7Attorney,7 this Court ,7 this Court has already had occasion to declarhas already had occasion to declare that persons whoe that persons who pass the Shari*a Bar are not full5fled%ed
pass the Shari*a Bar are not full5fled%ed members of the "hilippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari*amembers of the "hilippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari*a courts.
courts.%*%*
hile one
both be considered 7counsellors,7 in the
both be considered 7counsellors,7 in the sense that they %ive counsel sense that they %ive counsel or advice in a or advice in a professional capacityprofessional capacity, only the latter is, only the latter is an 7attorney.
an 7attorney.7 +he title of 7attorney7 is 7 +he title of 7attorney7 is reserved to those who, havin% obtained reserved to those who, havin% obtained the necessary de%ree in the necessary de%ree in the study of lawthe study of law and successfully ta'en the Bar E&aminations, have been
and successfully ta'en the Bar E&aminations, have been admitted to the nte%rated Bar of the admitted to the nte%rated Bar of the "hilippines and remain"hilippines and remain members thereof in %ood standin%- and
members thereof in %ood standin%- and it is they only it is they only who are authori8ed to practice law in who are authori8ed to practice law in this >urisdiction.this >urisdiction. /E@E01@E, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby @E"@MA$E$ for the use
/E@E01@E, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby @E"@MA$E$ for the use of e&cessively intemperate,of e&cessively intemperate, insultin% or virulent lan%ua%e,
insultin% or virulent lan%ua%e, i i ..ee., lan%ua%e unbecomin% a >udicial ., lan%ua%e unbecomin% a >udicial officerofficer, and for usurpin% the title of , and for usurpin% the title of attorney- andattorney- and he is warned that any similar
he is warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the or other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more future will be dealt with more severely.severely.
R0+ R0POR1 O!
R0+ R0POR1 O! 1H0 &I!A!CIAL AUDI1 CO!DUC10D O! 1H0 1H0 &I!A!CIAL AUDI1 CO!DUC10D O! 1H0 2OO3S O& ACCOU!1S O& A11Y2OO3S O& ACCOU!1S O& A11Y. RA4U0L. RA4U0L 5. 3HO, CL0R3
A.M. !o. P"6"%*$$ 7ue %$, %66 8&or9erl( A.M. !o. 6")"%/"R1C: &ats+
+his administrative case is a result of the audit conducted by the 1ffice of the Court Administrator (1CA) of the boo's of accounts of Atty. @aDuel 6. Fho, former cler' of court of the @e%ional +rial Court, Branch 3, 1ras, Eastern Samar. +he audit covered the period March 24:3 to 1ctober 92, =;;3.
+he 1CA, in its memorandum dated April 2:, =;;, had the followin% findin%s< (2) there was a shorta%e of"33.;; in remittances to the 6eneral 0und- (=) a cash shorta%e of "=.;; in the SheriffGs 6eneral 0und- and (9) Atty. Fho did not deposit on time in the authori8ed depository ban' the collections for the 0iduciary 0und (";, ;;;) and Special Allowance for the udiciary 0und ("3,;;;). t also noted that Atty. Fho had already restituted the "33.;; and "=.;; cash shorta%es.
1n anuary =, =;;, the 1CA received a letter5complaint with the information that Fho, alon% with his alle%ed common5law5wife, steno%rapher @i8a Amor #. #ibanan, was en%a%ed in lendin% out to court employees money in his possession as cler' of court, personally derivin% profit from the interest earned.
+he 1CA found Fho liable for violatin% 1CA Circular o. :A549 when he 'ept the funds in a safety vault for more than a year. All cler's of lower courts are supposed to deposit all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections with the #and Ban' upon receipt thereof. +hus, it recommended that (2) the audit report be doc'eted as a re%ular administrative complaint a%ainst Fho and (=) a fine in the amount of "2;,;;; be imposed on him.
Issue+ 1 failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes %ross dishonesty H %ross misconduct. Ruli-+
"ublic office is a public trust. +hose char%ed with the dispensation of >ustice, from the >ustices and >ud%es to the lowliest cler's, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.3 ot only must their conduct at all
times be characteri8ed by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion.
A cler' of court, aside from bein% the custodian of the courtGs funds, revenues, property and premises, is also entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementin% re%ulations re%ardin% fiduciary funds. Safe'eepin% of funds and collections is essential to an orderly administration of >ustice and no protestation of %ood faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars desi%ned to promote full accountability for %overnment funds. Cler's of court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authori8ed %overnment depositories for they are not supposed to 'eep funds in their custody.
Fho failed to ma'e a timely turn5over of cash deposited with him. +his was ine&cusable because he could have purchased postal money orders from the local post office payable to the chief accountant, Accountin% $ivision, 0M151CA. +he money could have earned interest had he not 'ept them in the vault for over a year. As found by the 1CA, althou%h Fho had restituted all his cash accountabilities, he was nevertheless liable for failin% to immediately deposit the collections for the >udiciary funds.
+he failure to re9it the fu;s i ;ue ti9e ostitutes -ross ;ishoest( a; -ross 9iso;ut. t diminishes the faith of the people in the udiciary. $ishonesty, bein% in the nature of a %rave offense, carries the e&treme penalty of dismissal from the service even if committed for the first time. /owever, Fho showed remorse by
immediately restitutin% the cash shorta%es and complyin% with the directives of the audit team. And considerin% that this is his first offense, we find that the penalty of "2;, ;;; fine is sufficient.
A!A A. CHUA a; MARC0LI!A HSIA vs. A11Y. SIM0O! M. M0SI!A, 7R., A.C. !o. )#6) Au-ust *%, %66)
P0R CURIAM+
By a verified complaint2 received by the 1ffice of the Bar Confidant on May 3, 244:,= Ana Alvaran Chua and
Marcelina /sia administratively char%ed Atty. Simeon M. Mesina, r., for breach of professional ethics, %ross professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice.
&ats+
@espondent was, for years, Ana Alvaran Chua and her now deceased husband Chua Iap AnGs le%al counsel and adviser upon whom they reposed trust and confidence. +hey were in fact lessees of a buildin% situated at Bur%os Street, Cabanatuan City (Bur%os property) owned by respondentGs family, and another property containin% an area of :3 sD. m., situated at Melencio Street, Cabanatuan City (Melencio property), also owned by respondentGs family whereon they (spouses Chua) constructed their house. +hese two properties were mort%a%ed by the re%istered owner, respondentGs mother 0elicisima Melencio vda. de Mesina (Mrs. Mesina), in favor of the "lanters
$evelopment Ban' to secure a loan she obtained.
As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obli%ation to the ban', respondent convinced complainant Ana Chua and her husband to help Mrs. Mesina by way of settlin% her obli%ation in consideration for which the Melencio property would be sold to them at ":3;.;;HsD. m.
Accommodatin% respondentGs reDuest, the spouses Chua and their business partner, herein co5complainant Marcelina /sia, settled Mrs. MesinaGs ban' obli%ation in the amount of "4:9,2=3.;.
A $eed of Absolute Sale dated anuary 24, 24:39 conveyin% the Melencio property for ":3,;;.;; was thereafter
e&ecuted by Mrs. Mesina, whose name appears therein as 70elicisima M. Melencio,7 in favor of complainants. As complainants were later apprised of the amount of capital %ains ta& they were to pay, they consulted respondent
about it. @espondent thus su%%ested to them that another $eed of Absolute Sale should be e&ecuted, antedated to 244 before the effectivity of the law mandatin% the payment of capital %ains ta&. As su%%ested by respondent, another $eed of Absolute Sale antedated 0ebruary 4, 244 was e&ecuted by Mrs. Mesina, whose name a%ain
appears therein as 70elicisima M. Melencio,7 in favor of complainants wherein the purchase price was also indicated to be ":3,;;.;;.
After liDuidatin% the advances made by the Chua spouses 7in the redemption of the MESA properties,7 Mrs. Mesina was found to have 7an e&istin% balance7 due the spouses in the amount of " ;;,;;;.;;, on account of which they advised respondent about it. @espondent, by Affidavit of 0ebruary 2:, 24:, 7ac'nowled%ed such obli%ation7 to be his and undertoo' to settle it within two years.
Complainants were subseDuently issued on anuary =2, 24: a title over the Melencio property.
ot lon% after the e&ecution of the 0ebruary 4, 244 $eed of Absolute Sale or in 0ebruary 24:, one uanito +ecson (+ecson) filed an Affidavit3 dated 0ebruary =;, 24: before the Cabanatuan City "rosecutorGs 1ffice char%in%
respondentGs mother, the spouses Chua, Marcelina /sia and the two witnesses to the said $eed of Absolute Sale, for 0alsification of "ublic $ocument and violation of the nternal @evenue Code. n his complaint affidavit, +ecson alle%ed that he was also a lessee of the Melencio property and was, alon% with the Chua spouses, supposed to purchase it but that contrary to their a%reement, the property was sold only to complainant and her co5complainant, to his e&clusion. +ecson went on to relate that the 0ebruary 4, 244 $eed of Absolute Sale did not reflect the true value of the Melencio property and was antedated 7to evade payment of capital %ains ta&.7
+ecson submitted documents showin% that indeed the uly 4, 244 $eed of Absolute Sale was antedated.
@espondent thereupon hatched a plan to dod%e the falsification char%e a%ainst Mrs. Mesina et al. /e proposed to complainants that they would simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina.
/eedin% the proposal of respondent, complainants e&ecuted a $eed of Absolute Sale dated April 2, 24: conveyin% to 70elicisima M. Melencio7 the Melencio property for ":3,;;.;;.
A new title was accordin%ly issued on April , 24: in the name of 70elicisima M. Melencio,7 the ownerGs copy of which was entrusted to complainants.
+ecson subseDuently filed before the Cabanatuan City "rosecutorGs 1ffice an Affidavit of $esistance dated September 3, 24: alle%in% that his filin% of the criminal complaint 7arose out of mere misunderstandin% and
difference7 with herein complainants and their co5respondents and he had no sufficient evidence a%ainst them. Some years later or on May =, 244;, respondent approached complainants and told them that he would borrow the ownerGs copy of Mrs. MesinaGs title with the underta'in% that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina e&ecute a
deed of sale over the Melencio property in complainantsG favor. n fact, respondent %ave complainants a written underta'in%: dated May =, 244; readin%<
@eceived the ownerGs duplicate copy of +C+ o. 9:9 issued by the @e%ister of $eeds, Cabanatuan City re%istered in the name of 0elicisima Mesina, widow, consistin% of about :3 sDuare meters more or less located at calle Melencio, Cabanatuan City from Mrs. Ana Chua and Marcelina /sia.
promise to and underta'e to have the $eed of Sale of the above5mentioned property in favor of Ana Chua and Marcelina /sia to be si%ned by Mrs. 0elicisima Mesina, within four () months from date hereof so that the above5mentioned property and title maybe transferred in the name of Ana Chua and Macelina /sia. (?nderscorin% supplied)
n the meantime, Mrs. Mesina died 7in the early part of 2442.7
$espite respondentGs repeated promises 7to effect7 the transfer of title in complainantsG name, he failed to do so. Complainants were later informed that the Melencio property was bein% offered for sale to the public.
+he spouses Chua and complainant Marcelina /sia thus filed on Au%ust =, 244= a Complaint4 a%ainst respondent
and his two siblin%s before the @e%ional +rial Court (@+C) of ueva Eci>a in Cabanatuan City, for 7$eclaration of ullity of Sale and @econveyance of @eal "roperty.7
As of the time of the filin% of the present administrative complaint in 244:, the civil case a%ainst the Mesina siblin%s was still pendin%.
+his Court, by @esolution of uly 29, 244:,2; directed respondent to file Comment on the complaint within ten days.
By @esolution of $ecember =, 244:,22this Court, notin% that the copy of the @esolution of uly 29, 244: reDuirin%
respondent to comment on the complaint sent to him at his office address at S. M. Mesina #aw 1ffice, 9; upiter St., "aseo de @o&as, Bel5Air Subd., Ma'ati City was returned unserved with the notation 7Moved,7 considered the
@esolution of uly 29, 244: served on respondent by substituted service pursuant to @ule 29, Section : of the 244 @ules of Civil "rocedure. @espondent was accordin%ly deemed to have waived the filin% of the reDuired comment. By the same @esolution of $ecember =, 244:, the case was referred to the nte%rated Bar of the "hilippines (B") for investi%ation, report and recommendation within ninety days.
+he B", actin% on the complaint, issued a notice of hearin% on September 2, =;;2,2=copy of which was sent to
respondent at his office address via re%istered mail, covered by @e%istry @eceipt o. =;3 of the Meralco "ost 1ffice.29 1n the scheduled date of hearin%, complainants personally appeared with their counsel. @espondent failed
to show up.
6iven the len%th of time that the case remained pendin% from its filin%, the B" Commission on Bar $iscipline, by 1rder of 1ctober 2=, =;;2,2directed complainants to >ust file their position paper with affidavits and supportin%
documents in lieu of actual presentation of witnesses and to serve a copy thereof to respondent at his last 'nown address.
n compliance with the B" 1rder, complainants filed on April 2, =;;= their position paper,23 anne&ed to which were
photocopies of< 2) a May 3, 2449 Certification2issued by the Metroban' Cabanatuan Branch certifyin% that 7it
issued the demand drafts to the payees enumerated below, which were debited from the account of Mr. Chua Iap An under Savin%s Account o. ;<
$H$ o. "ayee Amount $ate of ssue
=234 "lanters $ev. Ban' " :;3,=44.3 2=5245:3 =2; "lanters $ev. Ban' 2;;,;;;.;; ;2525: =22 Atty. Simeon Mesina, r. ,:=.2;
;2525:7-=) Affidavit dated 0ebruary 2:, 24:2 of respondent ac'nowled%in% a debt of ";;,;;;.;; to complainant Ana
Alvaran Chua and promisin% to pay interest thereon within = years to commence upon the si%nin% thereof J0ebruary 2, 244:K and, in the event no partial or full payment of the principal is made within = years, Ana Alvaran Chua 7is under no obli%ation to pay any lease rentals over the lot situated in Bur%os Avenue, Cabanatuan City where the 1ceanic /ardware Bld%. is erected-7 9) $eed of Absolute Sale dated anuary 24, 24:32: and ) $eed of Absolute
Sale dated uly 4, 244,24 both e&ecuted by 70elicisima M. Melencio7 in favor of complainant- 3) +C+ o. +5
:22=;issued by the Cabanatuan City in the name of complainants on anuary =2, 24:- ) Affidavit of uanito C.
+ecson=2 dated anuary =;, 24: char%in% complainants et al. for 0alsification of "ublic $ocuments- ) $eed of
Absolute Sale dated April 2, 24: e&ecuted by complainants in favor of Mrs. Mesina-== and :) +C+ o. +5
and Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina /sia, for $eclaration of ullity of $eed of Sale and @econveyance of @eal "roperty a%ainst respondent and his two siblin%s.=
A copy of complainantGs position paper was sent on March 2:, =;;= to respondent at his office address by
re%istered mail covered by @e%istry @eceipt o. 3=:.=3 +here is no showin% if respondent received this mail matter.
+he B" once more scheduled, by notice of $ecember 29, =;;=,= a hearin% of the administrative case to anuary
23, =;;9, copy of which notice was sent to respondent at his office address by re%istered mail covered by @e%istry @eceipt o. =439 issued by the Meralco "ost 1ffice.=
1n the scheduled hearin% on anuary 23, =;;9, the B" nvesti%atin% Commissioner, by 1rder of even date,=:noted
the presence of complainants, and the absence of respondent, copy of the notice of hearin% to whom was returned unserved with the notation 7@+S5Moved.7 +he case was thereupon deemed submitted for report and
recommendation.
1n une =2, =;;9, the B" passed @esolution o. L5=;;959==4adoptin% and approvin% the report and
recommendation of Atty. @ebecca illanueva5Maala, the nvesti%atin% Commissioner of the case.
n her March 9, =;;9 @eport and @ecommendation,9; nvesti%ation Commissioner Maala observed
respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina has committed %ross misconduct which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privile%e which his license and law confer upon him, and recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of 1ne (2) Iear.
Ruli-+
+he Supreme Court finds that respondent is %uilty of %ross misconduct.
0irst, by advisin% complainants to e&ecute another $eed of Absolute Sale antedated to 244 to evade payment of capital %ains ta&es, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and le%al processes, and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law- +hat respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the %overnment is a%%ravatin%.
Second, when respondent convinced complainants to e&ecute another document, a simulated $eed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed dishonesty.
+hird, when on May =, 244; respondent invei%led his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turnin% over to him the ownerGs copy of his motherGs title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale e&ecuted by his mother in favor of complainants, he li'ewise committed dishonesty.
+hat the si%nature of 70elicisima M. Melencio7 in the 24:3 document93 and that in the 244 document9are mar'edly
different is in fact is a bad%e of falsification of either the 244 or the 24:3 document or even both. A propos is this CourtGs followin% pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez9
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealin% with his client but the business transaction must be
characteri8ed with utmost honesty and %ood faith. +he measure of %ood faith which an attorney is reDuired to e&ercise in his dealin%s with his client is a much hi%her standard that is reDuired in business dealin%s where the parties trade at 7arms len%th.7 Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discoura%ed by the policy of the law. /ence, courts carefully watch these transactions to assure that no advanta%e is ta'en by a lawyer over his client. +his rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to ta'e advanta%e of the credulity and i%norance of his client. +hus, no presumption of innocence or improbability of wron%doin% is considered in an attorneyGs favor.
n fine, respondent violated his oath of office and, more specifically, the followin% canons of the Code of "rofessional @esponsibility<
CA1 2. A #AIE@ S/A## ?"/1#$ +/E C1S++?+1, 1BEI +/E #AS 10 +/E #A$ A$ "@1M1+E @ES"EC+ 01@ #A A$ #E6A# "@1CESSES.
@ule 2.;2. 5 A lawyer shall not en%a%e in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
@ule 2.;=. 5 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessenin% confidence in the le%al system.
CA1 . A #AIE@ S/A## A+ A## +MES ?"/1#$ +/E +E6@+I A$ $6+I 10 +/E #E6A# "@10ESS1 A$ S?""1@+ +/E AC++ES 10 +/E +E6@A+E$ BA@.
@ule .;9. 5 A lawyer shall not en%a%e in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the le%al profession.
CA1 23. A #AIE@ S/A## 1BSE@E CA$1@, 0A@ESS A$ #1IA#+I A## /S $EA#6S A$ +@ASAC+1S +/ /S C#E+S.
@ule 23.;. 5 A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. CA1 2. A #AIE@ 1ES 0$E#+I +1 +/E CA?SE 10 /S C#E+ A$ /E S/A## BE M$0?# 10 +/E +@?S+ A$ C10$ECE @E"1SE$ /M.
WH0R0&OR0, respondent A++I. SME1 M. MESA, @. is, for %ross misconduct, hereby $SBA@@E$.
@epublic of the "hilippines SUPR0M0 COUR1
Manila E BAC A.C. !o. /6*6 7ue *, %66#
30LD S10MM0RI3, re<resete; ( A11YS. H0RMI!IO A. LIWA!A5 a; WI!S1O! P.L. 0S5U0RRA,Complainant,
vs.
A11Y. L0O!U0L !. MAS, @espondent.
@ E S 1 # ? + 1
Per Curiam:
Complainant Feld Stemmeri' is a citi8en and resident of $enmar'. n one of his trips to the "hilippines, he was introduced to respondent Atty. #eonuel . Mas. +hat was his misfortune.
n one visit to the "hilippines, complainant marveled at the beauty of the country and e&pressed his interest in acDuirin% real property in the "hilippines. /e consulted respondent who advised him that he could le%ally acDuire and own real property in the "hilippines. @espondent even su%%ested an :,44: sD.m. property in uarry, A%usuin, Cawa%, Subic, Nambales with the assurance that the property was alienable.
+rustin% respondent, complainant a%reed to purchase the property throu%h respondent as his representative or attorney5in5fact. Complainant also en%a%ed the services of respondent for the preparation of the necessary documents. 0or this purpose, respondent demanded and received a ";;,;;; fee.
Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his tas', complainant returned to $enmar', entrustin% the processin% of the necessary paperwor' to respondent.
+hereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented by respondent, and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the property.2 SubseDuently, respondent prepared and
notari8ed a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold and conveyed the property to a certain Ailyn 6on8ales for "9.: million.= @espondent also drafted and notari8ed an a%reement between complainant and 6on8ales statin% that it
was complainant who provided the funds for the purchase of the property.9Complainant then %ave respondent the
full amount of the purchase price ( "9.: million) for which respondent issued an ac'nowled%ment receipt.
After the various contracts and a%reements were e&ecuted, complainant tried to %et in touch with respondent to inDuire about when the property could be re%istered in his name. /owever, respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer complainantGs calls and e5mail messa%es.
hen complainant visited the "hilippines a%ain in anuary =;;3, he en%a%ed the services of the imene8 6on8ales #iwana% Bello alde8 Caluya ! 0ernande8 #aw 1ffice to ascertain the status of the property he supposedly bou%ht. /e was devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under "hilippine laws. Moreover, verification at the
Community Environment ! atural @esources 1ffice (CE@1) of the $epartment of Environment and atural @esources in 1lon%apo City revealed that the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former ?S Military @eservation.3 +he CE@1 also stated that the property was not sub>ect to disposition or acDuisition under
@epublic Act o. 22.
+hereafter, complainant, throu%h his attorneys5in5fact,e&erted dili%ent efforts to locate respondent for purposes of
holdin% him accountable for his fraudulent acts. nDuiry with the 1lon%apo Chapter of the nte%rated Bar of the "hilippines (B") disclosed that respondent was in arrears in his annual dues and that he had already abandoned his law office in 1lon%apo City.: Search of court records of cases handled by respondent only yielded his abandoned
office address in 1lon%apo City.1avvphi1
Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment a%ainst respondent in the Commission on Bar $iscipline (CB$) of the B".4 /e deplored respondentGs acts of serious misconduct. n particular, he sou%ht the e&pulsion of respondent from
the le%al profession for %ravely misrepresentin% that a forei%ner could le%ally acDuire land in the "hilippines and for maliciously abscondin% with complainantGs "9.: million.2;
@espondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite service of notice at his last 'nown address. either did he appear in the scheduled mandatory conference. n this connection, the CB$ found that respondent
abandoned his law practice in 1lon%apo City after his transaction with complainant and that he did not see it fit to contest the char%es a%ainst him.22
+he CB$ ruled that respondent used his position as a lawyer to mislead complainant on the matter of land
ownership by a forei%ner .2=/e even went throu%h the motion of preparin% falsified and fictitious contracts, deeds and
a%reements. And for all these shameless acts, he collected ";;,;;; from complainant. orse, he poc'eted the "9.: million and absconded with it.29
+he CB$ found respondent to be 7nothin% more than an embe88ler7 who misused his professional status as an attorney as a tool for deceivin% complainant and abscondin% with complainantGs money.2 @espondent was dishonest
and deceitful. /e abused the trust and confidence reposed by complainant in him. +he CB$ recommended the disbarment of respondent.23
+he Board of 6overnors of the B" adopted the findin%s and recommendation of the CB$ with the modification that respondent was further reDuired to return the amount of ".= million to respondent.2
e a%ree with the B". Suffiie( Of !otie Of 1he Disar9et Proee;i-s
e shall first address a threshold issue< was respondent properly %iven notice of the disbarment proceedin%s a%ainst himO Ies.
+he respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he appear durin% the scheduled mandatory conference. @espondent in fact abandoned his last 'nown address, his law office in 1lon%apo City, after he committed the embe88lement.
@espondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearin% act. /e can neither defeat this CourtGs
>urisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealin% his whereabouts. +hus, service of the complaint and other orders and processes on respondentGs office was sufficient notice to him.
ndeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible, the notice reDuirement cannot apply to him and he is thus considered to have waived it. +he law does not reDuire that the impossible be done. Nemo
tenetur ad impossibile.2 +he law obli%es no one to perform an impossibility. #aws and rules must be interpreted in a
n this connection, lawyers must update their records with the B" by informin% the B" ational 1ffice or their respective chapters24 of any chan%e in office or residential address and other contact details.=; n case such chan%e
is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential address appearin% in the records of the B" ational 1ffice shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedin%s a%ainst him.
Res<o;et=s A;9iistrati>e Ifratios A; His Liailit( 1herefor
#awyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for the law and uphold the inte%rity of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of oppression or deception.
@espondent has been wei%hed by the e&actin% standards of the le%al profession and has been found wantin%.
@espondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. /e is also %uilty of culpable violation of the Code of "rofessional @esponsibility, the code of ethics of the le%al profession.
All lawyers ta'e an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.=2 +hat oath is neither
mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. t is a sacred trust that should be upheld and 'ept inviolable at all times.==
#awyers are servants of the law=9 and the law is their master. +hey should not simply obey the laws, they should
also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by servin% as e&emplars worthy of emulation. ndeed, that is the first precept of the Code of "rofessional @esponsibility<
CA1 2 P A #AIE@ S/A## ?"/1#$ +/E C1S++?+1, 1BEI +/E #AS 10 +/E #A$ A$ "@1M1+E @ES"EC+ 01@ #A A$ #E6A# "@1CESSES.
Section , Article L of the Constitution provides<
SEC. . Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed e&cept to individuals, corporations, or associations Dualified to acDuire or hold lands of the public domain.
+his Court has interpreted this provision, as early as the 24 case Krivenko v. egister o! Deeds"= to mean that
7under the Constitution, aliens may not acDuire private or a%ricultural lands, includin% residential lands.7 +he provision is a declaration of imperative constitutional policy.=3
@espondent, in %ivin% advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and %ross i%norance of basic law. orse, he prepared spurious documents that he 'new were void and ille%al.
By ma'in% it appear that de Mesa undertoo' to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the property to 6on8ales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and 'nowin%ly violated the Anti5$ummy #aw.=
@espondentGs misconduct did not end there. By advisin% complainant that a forei%ner could le%ally and validly acDuire real estate in the "hilippines and by assurin% complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. /e did not %ive due re%ard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. nstead, he deceived complainant and misled him into partin% with ";;,;;; for services that were both ille%al and unprofessional. Moreover, by poc'etin% and misappropriatin% the "9.: million %iven by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.1avvphi1
@espondent spun an intricate web of lies. n the process, he committed unethical act after unethical act, wantonly violatin% laws and professional standards.
0or all this, respondent violated not only the lawyerGs oath and Canon 2 of the Code of "rofessional @esponsibility. /e also trans%ressed the followin% provisions of the Code of "rofessional @esponsibility<
@ule 2.;2. P A la?(er shall ot e-a-e i ula?ful, ;ishoest, i99oral or ;eeitful o;ut.
@ule 2.;=. P A la?(er shall ot ousel or aet ati>ities ai9e; at ;efiae of the la? or at lessei-ofi;ee i the le-al s(ste9.
CA1 P A LAWY0R SHALL A1 ALL 1IM0S UPHOLD 1H0 I!105RI1Y A!D DI5!I1Y O& 1H0 L05AL PRO&0SSIO! A$ S?""1@+ +/E AC++ES 10 +/E +E6@A+E$ BA@.
CA1 23 P A LAWY0R SHALL O2S0RV0 CA!DOR, &AIR!0SS A$ #1IA#+I I! ALL HIS D0ALI!5S A!D 1RA!SAC1IO!S WI1H HIS CLI0!1.
CA1 2 P A LAWY0R SHALL HOLD I! 1RUS1 ALL MO!0YS A!D PROP0R1I0S O& HIS CLI0!1 +/A+ MAI C1ME +1 /S "1SSESS1.
CA1 2 P A LAWY0R 1ES 0$E#+I +1 +/E CA?SE 10 /S C#E+ A$ /E SHALL 20 MI!D&UL O& 1H0 1RUS1 A!D CO!&ID0!C0 R0POS0D I! HIM. (emphasis supplied)
A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his le%al 'nowled%e to further his selfish ends to the %reat pre>udice of others, poses a clear and present dan%er to the rule of law and to the le%al system. /e does not only tarnish the ima%e of the bar and de%rade the inte%rity and di%nity of the le%al profession, he also betrays everythin% that the le%al profession stands for.
t is respondent and his 'ind that %ive lawyerin% a bad name and ma'e laymen support $ic' the ButcherGs call, 7Fill all lawyersQ7= A dis%race to their professional brethren, they must be pur%ed from the bar.
WH0R0&OR0, respondent Atty. #eonuel . Mas is hereby DIS2ARR0D. +he Cler' of Court is directed to immediately stri'e out the name of respondent from the @oll of Attorneys.
@espondent is hereby ORD0R0D to return to complainant Feld Stemmeri' the total amount of ".= million with interest at 2=R per annum from the date of promul%ation of this resolution until full payment. @espondent is further DIR0C10D to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment. +he ational Bureau of nvesti%ation (B) is ORD0R0D to locate Atty. Mas and file the appropriate criminal char%es a%ainst him. +he B is further DIR0C10D to re%ularly report the pro%ress of its action in this case to this Court throu%h the Bar Confidant.
#et copies of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant who shall forthwith record it in the personal file of respondent, the Court Administrator who shall inform all courts of the "hilippines, the nte%rated Bar of the
"hilippines which shall disseminate copies to all its chapters and members and all administrative and Duasi5>udicial a%encies of the @epublic of the "hilippines.
SO ORD0R0D.
@epublic of the "hilippines SUPR0M0 COUR1
Manila
SEC1$ $S1
5.R. !o. *6)@## Marh **, *##) 7O! D0 YSASI III, petitioner, vs.
!A1IO!AL LA2OR R0LA1IO!S COMMISSIO! 8&OUR1H DIVISIO!:, C02U CI1Y, a; 7O! D0 YSASI,respondents.
F.#. $antiago" Nalus % &sso'iates !or petitioner. (smael &. $er!ino !or private respondent.
R05ALADO,J.:
+he ada%e that blood is thic'er than water obviously stood for nau%ht in this case, notwithstandin% the vin'ulum of paternity and filiation between the parties. t would indeed have been the better part of reason if herein petitioner and private respondent had reconciled their differences in an e&tra>udicial atmosphere of familial amity and with the %race of reciprocal concessions. 0ather and son opted instead for >udicial intervention despite the inevitable
acrimony and ne%ative publicity. Albeit with distaste, the Court cannot proceed elsewise but to resolve their dispute with the same reasoned detachment accorded any >udicial proceedin% before it.
+he records of this case reveal that petitioner was employed by his father, herein private respondent, as farm administrator of /acienda Manucao in /ini%aran, e%ros 1ccidental sometime in April, 24:;. "rior thereto, he was
successively employed as sales mana%er of +riumph nternational ("hil.), nc. and later as operations mana%er of +op 0orm Manufacturin% ("hil.), nc. /is employment as farm administrator was on a fi&ed salary, with other
allowances coverin% housin%, food, li%ht, power, telephone, %asoline, medical and dental e&penses.
As farm administrator, petitioner was responsible for the supervision of daily activities and operations of the
su%arcane farm such as land preparation, plantin%, weedin%, fertili8in%, harvestin%, dealin% with third persons in all matters relatin% to the ha'ienda and attendin% to such other tas's as may be assi%ned to him by private respondent. 0or this purpose, he lived on the farm, occupyin% the upper floor of the house there.
0ollowin% his marria%e on une , 24:=, petitioner moved to Bacolod City with his wife and commuted to wor' daily. /e suffered various ailments and was hospitali8ed on two separate occasions in une and Au%ust, 24:=. n
ovember, 24:=, he underwent fistulectomy, or the sur%ical removal of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. $urin% his recuperation which lasted over four months, he was under the care of $r. "atricio +an. n une, 24:9, he was confined for acute %astroenteritis and, thereafter, for infectious hepatitis from $ecember, 24:9 to anuary, 24:. $urin% the entire periods of petitioner*s illnesses, private respondent too' care of his medical e&penses and petitioner continued to receive compensation. /owever, in April, 24:, without due notice, private respondent ceased to pay the latter*s salary. "etitioner made oral and written demands for an e&planation for the sudden withholdin% of his salary from Atty. Apolonio Sumbin%co, private respondent*s auditor and le%al adviser, as well as for the remittance of his salary. Both demands, however, were not acted upon.
"etitioner then filed an action with the ational #abor @elations Commission (#@C, for brevity), @e%ional
Arbitration Branch o. , Bacolod City, on 1ctober 2, 24:, doc'eted therein as @AB Case o. ;3=5:, a%ainst private respondent for ille%al dismissal with prayer for reinstatement without loss of seniority ri%hts and payment of full bac' wa%es, thirteenth month pay for 24:9, conseDuential, moral and e&emplary dama%es, as well as attorney*s fees.
1n uly 92, 2442, said complaint for ille%al dismissal was dismissed by the #@C, *
holdin% that petitioner abandoned his wor' and that the termination of his employment was for a valid cause, but orderin% private respondent to pay
petitioner the amount of "3,;;;.;; as penalty f or his failure to serve notice of said termination of employment to the $epartment of #abor and Employment as reDuired b y Batas "ambansa Bl%. 29; and consonant with this Court*s rulin% in )enphil *orporation vs. National +abor elations *ommission" et al . % 1n appeal to the 0ourth $ivision of the #@C,
Cebu City, said decision was affirmed in toto.
/is motion for reconsideration )of said decision havin% been denied for lac' of merit, @petitioner filed this petition
presentin% the followin% issues for resolution< (2) whether or not the petitioner was ille%ally dismissed- (=) whether or not he is entitled to reinstatement, payment of bac' wa%es, thirteenth month pay and other b enefits- and (9) whether or not he is entitled to payment of moral and e&emplary dama%es and attorney*s fees because of ille%al dismissal. +he discussion of these issues will necessarily subsume the corollary Duestions presented by private respondent, such as the e&act date when petitioner ceased to function as f arm administrator, the character of the pecuniary amounts received by petitioner from private respondent, that is, whether the same are in the nature of salaries or pensions, and whether or not there was abandonment by petitioner of his functions as farm administrator.
n his manifestation dated September 2, 244=, the Solicitor 6 eneral recommended a modification of the decision of herein public respondent sustainin% the findin%s and conclusions of the E&ecutive #abor Arbiter in @AB Case o. ;3=5:, for which reason the #@C was reDuired to submit its own comment on the petition. n compliance with the
Court*s resolution of ovember 2, 244=, $#@C filed its comment on 0ebruary 2=, 244= lar%ely reiteratin% its earlier
position in support of the findin%s of the E&ecutive #abor Arbiter. /
Before proceedin% with a discussion of the issues, the observation of the labor arbiter is worth notin%<
+his case is truly uniDue. hat ma'es this case uniDue is the fact that because of the special relationship of the parties and the nature of the action involved, this case could very well %o down (in) the annals of the Commission as perhaps the first of its 'ind. 0or this case is an action filed by an only son, his father*s namesa'e, the only child and therefore the only heir a%ainst his own father. #
Additionally, the Solicitor 6eneral remar'ed<
. . . After an e&haustive readin% of the records, two (=) observations were noted that may >ustify why this labor case deserves special considerations. 0irst, most of the complaints that petitioner and private respondent had with each other, were personal matters affectin% father and son relationship. And secondly, if any of the complaints pertain to their wor', they allow their personal relationship to
come in the way. *6
. "etitioner maintains that his dismissal from employment was ille%al because of want of >ust cause therefor and non5observance of the reDuirements of due process. /e also char%es the #@C with %rave abuse of discretion in relyin% upon the findin%s of the e&ecutive labor arbiter who decided the case but did not conduct the hearin%s thereof.
"rivate respondent, in refutation, avers that there was abandonment by petitioner of his functions as farm
administrator, thereby armin% private respondent with a %round to terminate his employment at /acienda Manucao. t is also contended that it is wron% for petitioner to Duestion the factual findin%s of the e&ecutive labor arbiter and the #@C as only Duestions of law may be appealed for resolution b y this Court. 0urthermore, in see'in% the dismissal of the instant petition, private respondent faults herein petitioner for failure to refer to the correspondin% pa%es of the transcripts of steno%raphic notes, erroneously citin% Sections 23(d) and 2(d), @ule (should be Section 2JcK and JdK,
@ule and Section 2J%K, @ule 3;) of the @ules of Court, which provide that want of pa%e references to the records is a %round for dismissal of an appeal.
"refatorily, we ta'e advertence of the provisions of Article ==2 of the #abor Code that technical rules of evidence prevailin% in courts of law and eDuity shall not be controllin%, and that every and all reasonable means to speedily and ob>ectively ascertain the facts in each case shall be availed of, without re%ard to technicalities of law or
procedure in the interest of due process.
t is settled that it is not procedurally ob>ectionable for the decision in a case to be rendered by a >ud%e, or a labor arbiter for that matter, other than the one who conducted the hearin%. +he fact that the >ud%e who heard the case was not the >ud%e who penned the decision does not impair the validity of the >ud%ment, **
provided that he draws up his decision and resolution with due care and ma'es certain that they truly and accurately reflect conclusions and final dispositions on the bases of the facts of and evidence submitted in the case. *%
+hus, the mere fact that the case was initially assi%ned to #abor Arbiter @icardo +. 1ctavio, who conducted the hearin%s therein from $ecember 3, 24: to uly 22, 24:3, and was later transferred to E&ecutive #abor Arbiter 1scar S. ?y, who eventually decided the case, presents no procedural infirmity, especially considerin% that there is a presumption of re%ularity in the performance of a public officer*s functions, * which petitioner has not successfully
rebutted.
e are constrained to heed the underlyin% policy in the #abor Code rela&in% the application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases in the interest of due process, ever mindful of the lon%5standin% le%al precept that rules of procedure must be interpreted to help secure, not defeat, >ustice. 0or this reason, we cannot indul%e private
respondent in his tendency to nitpic' on trivial technicalities to boost his ar%uments. +he stren%th of one*s position cannot be hin%ed on mere procedural niceties but on solid bases in law and >urisprudence.
+he fundamental %uarantees of security of tenure and due process dictate that no wor'er shall be dismissed e&cept for >ust and authori8ed cause provided by law and after due process. *) Article =:= of the #abor Code enumerates the
causes for which an employer may validly terminate an employment, to wit<
(a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his wor'- (b) %ross and habitual ne%lect by the employee of his duties- (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authori8ed representative- (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee a%ainst the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authori8ed representative- and (e) other causes analo%ous to the fore%oin%.
+he employer may also terminate the services of any employee due to the installation of labor savin% devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closin% or cessation of operation of the establishment or
underta'in%, unless the closin% is for the purpose of circumventin% the pertinent provisions of the #abor Code, by servin% a written notice on the wor'ers and the $epartment of #abor and Employment at least one (2) month before the intended date thereof, with due entitlement to the correspondin% separation pay rates provided by law.*@
Sufferin% from a disease by reason whereof the continued employment of the employee is prohibited by law or is pre>udicial to his and his co5employee*s health, is also a %round for termination of his services provided he receives the prescribed
separation pay. *1n the other hand, it is well5settled that abandonment by an employee of his wor' authori8es the
employer to effect the former*s dismissal from employment. *$
After a careful review of the records of this case, we find that public respondent %ravely erred in affirmin% the decision of the e&ecutive labor arbiter holdin% that petitioner abandoned his employment and was not ille%ally dismissed from such employment. 0or want of substantial bases, in fact or
in law, we cannot %ive the stamp of finality and conclusiveness normally accorded to the factual findin%s of an administrative a%ency, such as herein public respondent #@C, */as even decisions of administrative a%encies which
are declared 7final7 by law are not e&empt from >udicial review when so warranted.*#
+he followin% perceptive disDuisitions of the Solicitor 6eneral on this point deserve acceptance<
t is submitted that the absences of petitioner in his wor' from 1ctober 24:= to $ecember 24:=, cannot be construed as abandonment of wor' because he has a >ustifiable e&cuse. "etitioner was sufferin% from perennial abscess in the peri5anal around the anus and fistula under the medical attention of $r. "atricio +an of @iverside Medical Center, nc., Bacolod City (+sn, ol. , $r. +an, 0ebruary 24, 24: at =;5).
+his fact (was) duly communicated to private respondent by medical bills sent to /acienda Manucao (+sn, ol. , $r. +an, anuary ==, 24: at 453;).
$urin% the period of his illness and recovery, petitioner stayed in Bacolod City upon the instruction(s) of private respondent to recuperate thereat and to handle only administrative matters of the
hacienda in that city. As a mana%er, petitioner is not really obli%ed to live and stay = hours a day inside /acienda Manucao.
&&& &&& &&&
After evaluatin% the evidence within the conte&t of the special circumstances involved and basic human e&perience, petitioner*s illness and strained family relation with respondent on de Isasi may be considered as >ustifiable reason for petitioner on de Isasi *s absence from wor' durin% the period of 1ctober 24:= to $ecember 24:=. n any event, such absence does not warrant outri%ht dismissal without notice and hearin%.
&&& &&& &&&
+he elements of abandonment as a %round for dismissal of an employee are as follows<
(2) failure to report for wor' or absence without valid or >ustifiable reason- and (=) clear intention to sever the employer5employee tie (Samson Alcantara, evie,er in +abor and $o'ial +egislation, 24:4 edition, p. 299).
+his /onorable Court, in several cases, illustrates what constitute abandonment. n Dagupan #us *ompan v . N+* (242 SC@A 9=:), the Court rules that for abandonment to arise, there must be a concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt act from which it may be inferred that the employee has no more interest to wor'. Similarly, in Nueva 'i/a ( le'tri' *ooperative"
(n' . v . N+* (2: SC@A =3), for abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment, there must be a deliberate, un>ustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. . . Mere absence is not sufficient- it must be accompanied by overt acts unerrin%ly pointin% to the fact that the employee simply does not want to wor' anymore.
+here are si%nificant indications in this case, that there is no abandonment. 0irst, petitioner*s
absence and his decision to leave his residence inside /acienda Manucao, is >ustified by his illness and strained family relations. Second he has some medical certificates to show his frail health. +hird, once able to wor', petitioner wrote a letter (Anne& 77) informin% private respondent of his intention to assume a%ain his employment. #ast, but not the least, he at once instituted a complaint for ille%al dismissal when he reali8ed he was un>ustly dismissed. All these are indications that petitioner had no intention to abandon his employment. %6
+he records show that the parties herein do not dispute the fact of petitioner*s confinement in the hospital for his various afflictions which reDuired medical treatment. either can it be denied that private respondent was well aware of petitioner*s state of health as the former admittedly shouldered part of the medical and hospital bills and even advised the latter to stay in Bacolod City until he was fit to wor' a%ain. +he disa%reement as to whether or not petitioner*s ailments were so serious as to necessitate hospitali8ation and correspondin% periods for recuperation is beside the point. +he fact remains that on account of said illnesses, the details of which were amply substantiated by the attendin% physician, %* and as the records are bereft of any su%%estion of malin%erin% on the part of petitioner,
there was >ustifiable cause for petitioner*s absence from wor'. e repeat, it is clear, deliberate and un>ustified refusal to resume employment and not mere absence that is reDuired to constitute abandonment as a valid %round for termination of employment. %%
ith his position as farm administrator of /acienda Manucao, petitioner unmista'ably may be classified as a mana%erial employee %
to whom the law %rants an amount of discretion in the dischar%e of his duties. +his is why when petitioner stated that 7 assi%ned myself where want to %o,7 %) he was simply bein% candid about what he could do within
the sphere of his authority. /is duties as farm administrator did not strictly reDuire him to 'eep re%ular hours or to be at the office premises at all times, or to be sub>ected to specific control from his employer in every aspect of his wor'. hat is essential only is that he runs the farm as efficiently and effectively as possible and, while petitioner may definitely not Dualify as a model employee, in this re%ard he proved to be Duite successful, as there was at least a showin% of increased production durin% the time that petitioner was in char%e of farm operations.
f, as private respondent contends, he had no control over petitioner durin% the years 24:9 to 24:, this is because that was the period when petitioner was recuperatin% from illness and on account of which his attendance and direct involvement in farm operations were irre%ular and minimal, hence the supervision and control e&ercisable by private respondent as employer was necessarily limited. t %oes without sayin% that the control contemplated refers only to matters relatin% to his functions as farm administrator and could not e&tend to petitioner*s personal affairs and activities.
hile it was ta'en for %ranted that for purposes of dischar%in% his duties as farm administrator, petitioner would be stayin% at the house in the farm, there really was no e&plicit contractual stipulation (as there was no formal
employment contract to be%in with) reDuirin% him to stay therein for the duration of his employment or that any transfer of residence would >ustify the termination of his employment. +hat petitioner chan%ed his residence should
not be ta'en a%ainst him, as this is undeniably amon% his basic ri%hts, nor can such fact of transfer of residence per se be a valid %round to terminate an employer5employee relationship.
"rivate respondent, in his pleadin%s, asserted that as he was yet uncertain of his son*s intention of returnin% to wor' after his confinement in the hospital, he 'ept petitioner on the payroll, reported him as an employee of
theha'ienda for social security purposes, and paid his salaries and benefits with the mandated deductions therefrom until the end of $ecember, 24:=. t was only in anuary, 24:9 when he became convinced that petitioner would no lon%er return to wor' that he considered the latter to have abandoned his wor' and, for this reason, no lon%er listed him as an employee. Accordin% to private respondent, whatever amount of money was %iven to petitioner from that time until
April, 24: was in the nature of a pension or an allowance or mere %ratuitous doles from a father to a son, and not salaries as, in fact, none of the usual deductions were made therefrom. t was only in April, 24: that private
respondent completely stopped %ivin% said pension or allowance when he was an%ered by what he heard petitioner had been sayin% about sendin% him to >ail.
"rivate respondent capitali8es on the testimony of one Manolo 6ome8 ta'en on oral deposition re%ardin%
petitioner*s alle%ed statement to him, 7 0he uemado los 0pue0ntes de 3anu'ao7 (7 have burned my brid%es with Manucao7) as e&pressive of petitioner*s intention to abandon his >ob. n addition to insinuations of sinister motives on the part of petitioner in wor'in% at the farm and thereafter abandonin% the >ob upon accomplishment of his
ob>ectives, private respondent ta'es the novel position that the a%reement to support his son after the latter
abandoned the administration of the farm le%ally converts the initial abandonment to implied voluntary resi%nation. %@
As earlier mentioned, petitioner ripostes that private respondent undoubtedly 'new about petitioner*s illness and even paid for his hospital and other medical bills. +he assertion re%ardin% abandonment of wor', petitioner ar%ues, is further belied by his continued performance of various services related to the operations of the farm from May to the last Duarter of 24:9, his persistent inDuiries from his father*s accountant and le%al adviser about the reason why his pension or allowance was discontinued since April, 24:, and his indication of havin% recovered and his
willin%ness and capability to resume his wor' at the farm as e&pressed in a letter dated September 2, 24:. %
ith these, petitioner contends that it is immaterial how the monthly pecuniary amounts are desi%nated, whether as salary, pension or allowance, with or without deductions, as he was entitled thereto in view of his continued service as farm administrator. %$
+o stress what was earlier mentioned, in order that a findin% of abandonment may >ustly be made there must be a concurrence of two elements, viz .< (2) the failure to report for wor' or absence without valid or >ustifiable reason, and (=) a clear intention to sever the employer5employee relationship, with the second element as the more
determinative factor and bein% manifested by some overt acts. Such intent we find dismally wantin% in this case. t will be recalled that private respondent himself admitted bein% unsure of his son*s plans of returnin% to wor'. +he absence of petitioner from wor' since mid524:=, prolon%ed thou%h it may have been, was not without valid causes of which private respondent had full 'nowled%e. As to what convinced or led him to believe that petitioner was no lon%er returnin% to wor', private respondent neither e&plains nor substantiates by any reasonable basis how he arrived at such a conclusion.
Moreover, private respondent*s claim of abandonment cannot be %iven credence as even after anuary, 24:9, when private respondent supposedly 7became convinced7 that petitioner would no lon%er wor' at the farm, the latter
continued to perform services directly reDuired by his position as farm administrator. +hese are duly and
correspondin%ly evidenced by such acts as pic'in% up some farm machineryHeDuipment from 6.A. Machineries, nc., %/
claimin% and payin% for additional farm eDuipment and machinery shipped by said firm from Manila to Bacolod throu%h Nip 0orwarders, %# %ettin% the payment of the additional cash advances for molasses for crop year 24:9524: from
A%rote& Commodities, nc., 6and remittin% to private respondent throu%h
Atty. Sumbin%co the sums collected alon% with receipts for medicine and oil. *
t will be observed that all of these chores, which petitioner too' care of, relate to the normal activities and
operations of the farm. +rue, it is a father*s prero%ative to reDuest or even command his child to run errands for him. n the present case, however, considerin% the nature of these transactions, as well as the property values and monetary sums involved, it is unli'ely that private respondent would leave the matter to >ust anyone. "rudence dictates that these matters be handled by someone who can be trusted or at least be held accountable therefor, and who is familiar with the terms, specifications and other details relative thereto, such as an employee. f indeed
petitioner had abandoned his >ob or was considered to have done so by private respondent, it would be aw'ward, or even out of place, to e&pect or to obli%e petitioner to concern himself with matters relatin% to or e&pected of him with respect to what would then be his past and terminated employment. t is hard to ima%ine what further authority an employer can have over a dismissed employee so as to compel him to continue to perform wor'5related tas's< t is also si%nificant that the special power of attorney % e&ecuted
by private respondent on une =, 24:; in favor of petitioner, specifically statin% &&& &&& &&&
