/.

~11:0("

1~\'t.'-....,
'Mj~! .......r:i~
o;.!.!'~''"

3Republic of tlJe !IIJilippines

$>upreme q[ourt
:fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

THE CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS A.C. No. 10483

IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
PICO LOCAL CENTER, Present:
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SERENO, CJ,
EDWIN A. PANTE, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
Complainant, BERSAMIN,
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
- versus - CAGUIOA,JJ

ATTY. DANIEL D. Promulgated:

MANGALLAY,
Respondent. MAR 1 6 2016 ~
x--------------------------------------------------------------------~-~--------------x
DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This administrative case against the respondent attorney did not arise
from any attorney-client relationship gone wrong between the parties but
from the ejectment action in which the respondent attorney, as the plaintiff,
successfully defeated the local congregation of the Christian Spiritists in the
Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center (CSP-PLC), whose church building and
other structures were the objects of the action. After the defendants filed
their notice of appeal, the parties agreed to settle among themselves, with the
defendants withdrawing the notice of appeal and agreeing to voluntarily
vacate and remove their structures by August 31, 2013 in consideration of
the respondent's financial assistance of P300,000.00. But, despite receiving
the respondent's financial assistance, the defendants reneged on their end of
the agreement; hence, at the respondent's instance, the trial court issued the
writ of execution and the writ of demolition, by virtue of which the
structures of the defendants were ultimately demolished.

The demolition impelled the CSP-PLC, represented by its local --

Minister, Edwin A. Pante (Pante), to bring the disbarment complaint against
the respondent based on his allegedly gross misconduct and deceit in causing
the demolition of the structures without the demolition order from the court,

#;
Decision 2 A.C. No. 10483

violation of the Lawyers Oath, and disobedience to a lawful order of the

court, positing that he thereby abused his legal knowledge.

Antecedents

Pante avers that the CSP-PLC constructed its church building on the
land located in JE 176 Pico, La Trinidad, Benguet, which was owned by
Maria Omiles who had bought it from Larry Ogas;1 that on June 11, 2012,
Omiles and Pastor Elvis Maliked received the summons issued by the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet requiring them to
answer the complaint for unlawful detainer filed against them by the
respondent; that based on the allegations of the complaint (docketed as Civil
Case No. R-1256 entitled Daniel Dazon Mangallay v. Maria Tomino Omiles
and all persons staying with and/or acting on her behalf, including all
Officers and/or patrons of the Church of the Christian Spiritists in the
Philippines, represented by Pastor Elvis S. Maliked), the respondent claimed
ownership of the land where the church of the CSP-PLC had been erected,
attaching the copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 45241 issued
by the Register of Deeds of Benguet, and the deed of absolute sale executed
between him and one Pedro Loy;2 that the MTC later on decided the case by
declaring the respondent to have the better right of possession; and that the
MTC further declared that the CSP-PLC was a builder in good faith, without
prejudice to the respondent exercising his option to appropriate the building
in accordance with Article 448 of the Civil Code.3

As earlier mentioned, the respondent sought and obtained the writ of

execution from the MTC after the defendants, including the complainant,
reneged on the promise to voluntarily vacate and surrender the premises by
August 31, 2013 in consideration of the respondents financial assistance of
P300,000.00. The writ of execution was issued on December 13, 2013 and
the writ of demolition on December 19, 2013. Sheriffs Joselito S. Tumbaga
and John Marie O. Ocasla, accompanied by the respondent and elements of
the Philippine National Police, implemented the writ of execution and writ
of demolition on January 22 and January 23, 2014 by demolishing the
church building and the pastoral house of the CSP-PLC.4

1
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2
Id.
3
Id. at 17. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in the above-entitled case:
1. Declaring the plaintiff as having the better right to the material and physical possession of
the subject property in dispute;
2. Declaring defendants as builders in good faith;
3. Directing plaintiff to exercise his option pursuant to the provisions of Article 448 of the
New Civil Code of the Philippines, within thirty (30) days from the finality of this judgment
insofar as the improvements introduced by the defendants on the subject property.
4. No pronouncement as to damages and costs.
SO ORDERED.
4
Id. at 56-58.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 10483

Pante now insists that the demolition was done without a demolition
order from the MTC; that the dismantled materials worth P462,236.00 were
forcibly taken away by the respondent, who had taken advantage of his legal
knowledge to cause the premature demolition of the structures sans the
demolition order; that such taking away of the dismantled materials
constituted robbery and malicious mischief; and that his act warranted his
disbarment.

In response, the respondent denies any wrong doing. He counters that

the demolition was backed up by a court order;5 that after receiving the
decision of the MTC, the parties entered into a compromise agreement by
virtue of which the CSP-PLC withdrew its appeal and promised to
voluntarily vacate and surrender the disputed premises in consideration of
P300,000.00 to be paid by him;6 that despite his having paid the same, the
CSP-PLC did not vacate the premises even within the grace period given to
them;7 that he then moved for the execution of the judgment, and his motion
was granted by the MTC;8 that the sheriffs report dated November 21,
20139 stated that after the CSP-PLC did not comply with the writ of
execution to remove or demolish its structures on the premises; that he
consequently sought from the MTC the writ of demolition; and that the
MTC issued the writ of demolition.10

The respondent avers that it was not he but the sheriffs who
implemented the writ of demolition; that the sheriffs report dated January
30, 2014 stated that the conduct of the implementation was peaceful, and
that Pante and the other members of the church personally observed the
conduct of the demolition; and that the sheriffs report further stated that
Pante showed no defiance of the lawful order of the court.11

The respondent submits that there was nothing wrong in his

appropriating the dismantled materials to ensure compensation for the
expenses incurred in the demolition; and that the complaint for his
disbarment should be dismissed.

Ruling of the Court

The complaint for disbarment is absolutely devoid of merit and

substance.

5
Id. at 53-54.
6
Id. at 54-55.
7
Id. at 55.
8
Id. at 80-81.
9
Id. at 82.
10
Id. at 87-88.
11
Id. at 89.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 10483

Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, provides as follows:

Section 1. How Instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment,

suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court
motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the
verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and
concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of
persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by
such documents as may substantiate said facts.

The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral

by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance
of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys including those in the government service. Provided, however,
That all charges against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts,
even if lawyers are jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the
Supreme Court; Provided, further, That charges filed against Justices and
Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment in
the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
disposition and adjudication

Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the
Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall
forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment
to an investigator. (As amended, Bar Matter No. 1960, May 1, 2000.)

Under the foregoing rule, the proceedings for the disbarment,

suspension or discipline of an attorney may be taken by the Court, motu
proprio, or by the IBP itself upon the verified complaint of any person.

Should the disciplinary complaint against the attorney be filed directly

with the Court, the complaint is referred to the IBP for investigation, report
and recommendation. The reference to the IBP is resorted to whenever the
factual basis for the charge may be contested or disputed, or may require the
reception of the evidence of the complainant and the respondent attorney.
After the referral and hearings, the IBP renders its findings and
recommendations on the complaint, subject to the review by the Court.12
Yet, the Court may dispense with the referral to the IBP and resolve the
charge without delay. This happens particularly when the charge is patently
frivolous, or insincere, or unwarranted, or intended only to harass and spite
the respondent attorney.

The Court has not enunciated any rule that prohibits the direct filing
with it of administrative complaints against attorneys in order to emphasize
its role as the guardian of the legal profession with the ultimate disciplinary
power over attorneys. The disciplinary power of the Court is both a right

12
See Section 8 and Section 12 (b) and (c), Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 10483

and a duty.13 Quite recently, however, the Court has revised Rule 139-B14 to
eliminate any ambiguity about the authority of the Court to directly receive
administrative complaints against attorneys, thus:

Section 1. How Instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment,

suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court
motu proprio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint of any person
before the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of
and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge
of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate
said facts.

The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate

disposition all complaints for disbarment, suspension and discipline filed
against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court
of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against lawyers in the
government service, whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with
other respondents, and whether or not such complaint deals with acts
unrelated to the discharge of their official functions. If the complaint is
filed before the IBP, six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed
with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who
shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for
assignment to an investigator.

xxxx

B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Section 13. Investigation of complaints. In proceedings initiated

by the Supreme Court, or in other proceedings when the interest of justice
so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to
the Office of the Bar Confidant, or to any officer of the Supreme
Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall
proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that
the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the
Supreme Court.

The complaint may also be referred to the IBP for

investigation, report, and recommendation. [bold emphasis supplied to
indicate the revisions]

Under the foregoing revisions of Rule 139-B, the administrative

complaints against attorneys are generally not dismissed outright but are
instead referred for investigation, report and recommendation either to the
IBP, or the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), or any office of the Court or
even a judge of a lower court. Such referral ensures that the parties right to
due process is respected as to matters that require further inquiry and which
cannot be resolved by the mere evaluation of the documents attached to the

13
Berbano v. Barcelona, A.C. No. 6084, September 3, 2003, 410 SCRA 258, 268.
14
Bar Matter No. 1645, Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B, October 13, 2015.
Decision 6 A.C. No. 10483

pleadings.15 Consequently, whenever the referral is made by the Court, the

IBP, the OBC or other authorized office or individual must conduct the
formal investigation of the administrative complaint, and this investigation is
a mandatory requirement that cannot be dispensed with except for valid and
compelling reasons because it serves the purpose of threshing out all the
factual issues that no cursory evaluation of the pleadings can determine.16

However, the referral to the IBP is not compulsory when the

administrative case can be decided on the basis of the pleadings filed with
the Court, or when the referral to the IBP for the conduct of formal
investigation would be redundant or unnecessary, such as when the
protraction of the investigation equates to undue delay. Dismissal of the case
may even be directed at the outset should the Court find the complaint to be
clearly wanting in merit.17 Indeed, the Rules of Court should not be read as
preventing the giving of speedy relief whenever such speedy relief is
warranted.

It is upon this that we dispense with the need to refer the complaint
against the respondent to the IBP for the conduct of the formal investigation.
The documents he submitted to substantiate his denial of professional
wrongdoing are part of the records of the trial court, and, as such, are
sufficient to establish the unworthiness of the complaint as well as his lawful
entitlement to the demolition of the structures of the defendants in Civil
Case No. R-1256.

Specifically, the demolition was authorized by the order issued by the

MTC on December 19, 2013.18 In the execution of the final and executory
decision in Civil Case No. R-1256, the sheriffs dutifully discharged their
functions. The presence of the respondent during the execution proceedings
was by no means irregular or improper, for he was the plaintiff in Civil Case
No. R-1256. The complainant was then represented by Pante and some other
members of the congregation, who did not manifest any resistance or
objection to any irregularity in the conduct of the execution. After all,
elements of the Philippine National Police were also present to ensure the
peaceful implementation of the writ of execution.

Neither do we find anything wrong, least of all criminal, in the act of

the respondent of taking away the materials of the demolished structures.
The parties put an end to their dispute by the defendants, including the
complainant and Pante, opting to withdraw their notice of appeal and
undertaking to voluntarily vacate and to peacefully turn over the premises to
the respondent by August 31, 2013 in exchange for the latters financial

15
Baldomar v. Paras, Adm.Case No. 4980, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 212, 214-215.
16
Tabang v. Gacott, Adm.Case No. 6490, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 307, 312.
17
Cottam v. Laysa, Adm.Case No. 4834, February 29, 2000, 326 SCRA 614, 617.
18
Rollo, pp. 87-88.
Decision 7 A.C. No. 10483

assistance of the P300,000.00. The respondent paid the amount in the MTC
on March 20, 2013, and the amount was later on received by Maria Omiles,
Feliciano Omiles, Jr., and Noralyn T. Abad as the representatives of the
CSP-PLC on the same day. 19 But the latter reneged on their part of the
agreement without returning the P300,000.00 to the respondent, who was
left to exhaust his legal remedies to enforce the judgment against them. It is
notable that the judgment expressly directed him "to exercise his option
pursuant to the provisions of Article 448 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines within thirty (30) days from the finality of this judgment insofar
as the improvements introduced by the defendants on the subject property."20
Article 448 of the Civil Code granted to him as the owner of the premises,
among others, "the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and
548." His act of taking the materials of the demolished structures was
undoubtedly the exercise of the right of appropriating them in light of the
fact that the P300,000.00 earlier delivered as financial assistance was most
likely meant to indemnify the supposed builders in good faith.

The respondent has called attention to the letter of the Christian

Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc., 21 the mother organization to which the
CSP-PLC belonged, to the effect that it was disavowing knowledge of or
participation in the disbarment complaint, and that it was categorically
declaring that the complaint had been filed by Pante only for his personal
interest at the expense of the congregation. The sentiments expressed in the
letter manifested the inanity of the complaint, and the ill motives behind
Pante' s filing of the complaint against the respondent. The proper outcome
for such a complaint is its immediate dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the complaint for disbarment

against Atty. Daniel Dazon Mangallay for its utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
19
Id. at 75.
20
Supra note 3.
21
Rollo, p. 46.
 Decision 8 A.C. No. 10483

.lf~Al~~h, ~~~ /AP!,~

TERESITXJ. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ESTELA M . .P~RLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
/ ()
f)N1 !1\.-
L/ . .. ~
~ '~
--=
/ ALFREDqf EN~A~g.s. CAGUIOA
1 \ ssociate u tlce
I
I
L