6/30/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
xxxx
(b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total
membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the
complaint or the imposition disciplinary action against the respondent. The
Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on
which it is based. x x x.
(c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence
presented and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final action within ten (10) days from issuance of the resolution.[24]
Indeed, the authority to discipline a lawyer, who transgresses his ethical duties under
the CPR, lies with this Court. Any final action on a lawyer's administrative liability shall
be done by the Court based on the entire records of the case, including the IBP Board's
recommendation, without need to file any additional pleading. On this score, the filing
of a petition for review is unnecessary. The IBP Board's resolution and case records
were forwarded to the Court. We are then bound to fully consider all documents
contained therein, regardless of any further pleading filed by any party — including the
present petition for review, which the Court may nonetheless consider if only to
completely resolve the merits of this case and determine respondent's actual
administrative liability.[25]
After a careful review of the records, the Court adopts the recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors dismissing the case against Atty. Espiritu.
There is no evidence that Atty. Espiritu was retained as counsel by Capinpin. The
latter's claim, that she obtained the services of Atty. Espiritu to handle her civil cases,
and especially, to deal with BDO, lacks factual basis. First, with regard to Civil Case No.
Q93-15901, the Answer filed by Capinpin before Branch 82 of the RTC-QC, was signed
by Atty. Dionisio Maneja, Jr.[26] It was alleged therein that Capinpin offered the subject
property to Atty. Espiritu.[27] Incidentally, Capinpin signed the Verification attached to
the Answer, attesting that she caused the preparation of the pleading, and that she
understood and confirmed its contents, which are true and correct.[28] It is then clear
that Atty. Espiritu did not represent Capinpin in the civil case. The mention of Atty.
Espiritu in the Answer was not in his capacity as a lawyer, but as a prospective buyer of
Capinpin's property. The same is true with the letter addressed to BDO's Chief Legal
Counsel, Atty. Irene Ishiwata, dated August 4, 1993, and signed by Atty. Espiritu.
Second, the Motion to Set Case for Reception of Rebuttal Evidence, in Civil Case No. 091-10383, was signed by Atty. Espiritu as attorney-in-fact of Capinpin. An attorney-infact is an agent authorized to act on behalf of another person, but not necessarily
authorized to practice law. Capinpin's insistence, that their agreement was to establish
an attorney-client relationship and not just a mere principal-agent relationship, is
misplaced. Capinpin never presented the Special Power of Attorney she executed in
favor of Atty. Espiritu or any other evidence to prove her attorney-client relationship
with Atty. Espiritu, like the receipt for the money supposedly entrusted to him.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66573
4/8