A.C. No. 1184 September 13, 1985
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT AGAINST ATTORNEY PER OLANDESCA. LEOPOLDO FACINAL, complainant-petitioner.

FACTS

Complainant Leopoldo Facinal filed a disbarment petition against Atty. Per Olandesca, alleging that the respondent lawyer, with the aid of PC soldiers, unlawfully entered his fishpond in Sapian, Capiz, and coerced his workers and son into signing affidavits to facilitate their eviction. Facinal claimed Olandesca threatened arrest and succeeded in taking possession of the property, using the affidavits to support a criminal case against him. The acts were portrayed as an abuse of the lawyer’s authority to harass and dispossess.
In his defense, Atty. Olandesca denied all charges, asserting that Facinal was a squatter on public land where he (Olandesca) held a valid fishpond permit from the Philippine Fisheries Commission. He explained that he had reported Facinal’s illegal cutting of trees to the Bureau of Forest Development and the Philippine Fisheries Commission. The subsequent joint operation by these government agencies, where forestry officers confiscated illegally cut timber and filed a criminal complaint under P.D. No. 54, was a legitimate enforcement action in which he merely participated as an affected permittee.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Per Olandesca’s actions constitute unethical conduct warranting disbarment, specifically through alleged coercion, intimidation, and abuse of his position as a lawyer to dispossess the complainant of his fishpond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit, adopting the investigation report and recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General. The legal logic rests on the insufficiency of evidence to prove that Olandesca committed the alleged unethical acts. The Solicitor General’s report found that the accusation of coercion and intimidation was not satisfactorily established. Notably, Facinal’s son refused to sign a statement without reprisal, and other affidavits from Facinal’s relatives and workers were executed voluntarily before forestry and fishery officers and PC personnel, with no showing that Olandesca prepared them or directed the signatories.
The Court reasoned that Olandesca’s presence during the enforcement operation was a natural consequence of his status as the permittee of the land where the violations occurred. The report clarified that the seizure of trees and the filing of the criminal case were official actions undertaken by the forestry officer, not by the respondent lawyer. Olandesca’s act of reporting the illegal logging to the proper authorities was within his rights as a citizen and permit holder, not an abuse of his legal profession. Without clear and convincing evidence linking Olandesca to the alleged coercive and unauthorized acts, the charges could not be sustained. The dismissal underscores the principle that disbarment, being a severe penalty, requires proof of misconduct by substantial evidence, which was absent in this case.