G.R. No. A.C. No. 12876, January 12, 2021
Peter Lance Dillon, Complainant, vs. Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Peter Lance Dillon engaged the services of respondent Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz in April 2014 to represent him in a criminal case for Falsification of a Public Document filed against Anna Maria Mapili before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 9. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to issue receipts for payments, failed to communicate regarding the case status, failed to answer emails, failed to attend a court hearing on November 6, 2014, and falsified the complainant’s Judicial Affidavit (JA) submitted in the case. After losing the criminal case, complainant filed this disbarment case for gross incompetence and extreme negligence.
Respondent denied the accusations. He asserted he was the fourth lawyer to handle the case, exercised honesty and diligence, and constantly apprised the complainant of the case status via email. He detailed that after engagement, the court referred the case to mediation and set pre-trial. Despite respondent’s emails, complainant failed to attend the July 24, 2014 pre-trial and the subsequent August 5, 2014 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). For the August 26, 2014 JDR, respondent requested a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from complainant, but complainant neither appeared nor sent the SPA, leading to the termination of JDR and setting of trial for November 6, 2014. Respondent admitted missing the November 6 hearing due to illness but sent his secretary to inform the court. The court directed the prosecution to submit the complainant’s JA within 15 days. After discussing the JA contents with complainant starting November 8, 2014, respondent sent the JA for complainant’s signature on November 24, 2014. As complainant was unavailable and the JA had to be filed that day, respondent signed the JA on behalf of the complainant, attaching the SPA the complainant had previously executed in his favor. Complainant later expressed dissatisfaction with the JA, terminated respondent’s services via email on December 16, 2014, and requested formal withdrawal, which respondent filed. On September 28, 2015, complainant sent an email to respondent threatening to file complaints against the judge, fiscal, and respondent, demanding a refund of expenses and further legal actions, which respondent viewed as blackmail and extortion.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for signing the JA on behalf of his client without authority and recommended a three-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted the findings but reduced the penalty to one month suspension. Respondent moved for partial reconsideration, asserting he was authorized via an SPA, but the IBP-BOG denied it.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Napoleon C. De Quiroz should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by signing the Judicial Affidavit for and in behalf of his client without the requisite authority to do so.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the ruling of the IBP-BOG and DISMISSED the Complaint for Disbarment for lack of merit.
The Court held that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the allegations by substantial evidence. The Court found no sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to hold respondent administratively liable. The Court noted the complainant had a pattern of distrust, as respondent was the fourth lawyer to handle the case, and any delay or loss was not solely respondent’s fault. The charge of deceit or falsification was not supported by concrete evidence.
On the specific issue of signing the JA, the Court disagreed with the IBP’s finding that respondent lacked authority. The Court found that respondent was fully authorized by the complainant through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that the complainant had executed and signed in his favor. This SPA was attached to the JA and to respondent’s position paper. The SPA authorized respondent to sign on behalf of the complainant in all pleadings. The complainant’s actions indicated he had given full authority to respondent.
Furthermore, the Court took note of the complainant’s September 28, 2015 email, which contained threats to “blacken names and reputations” against the respondent, the subsequent lawyer, the judge, and the fiscal. The email also demanded a refund of payments and costs or the undertaking of further legal actions at respondent’s expense, which the Court viewed as conduct “borderline blackmail and extortion.” The Court concluded the complaint was baseless and merely an expression of the complainant’s frustration over losing his case. While the Court will discipline lawyers who fail in their duties, it will not do so based on accusations that are not indubitably proven.