G.R. No. A.C. No. 6490. September 29, 2004.
Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang, complainants, vs. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Lilia and Concepcion Tabang filed a disbarment case against Atty. Glenn C. Gacott for gross misconduct, deceit, and dishonesty. They alleged that Lilia, upon the advice of the respondent’s father, a judge, purchased agricultural land using fictitious names to circumvent agrarian reform laws, securing titles in seven fictitious persons. Needing funds later, they sought respondent’s help to sell the properties and entrusted the titles to him. Respondent claimed he lost the titles and advised filing petitions for re-issuance.
When Lilia, posing as an agent for the fictitious owners, filed for re-issuance, the court noticed signature similarities, prompting her to withdraw. Upon refiling, respondent allegedly executed and annotated Revocations of Special Power of Attorney and Affidavits of Recovery in the names of the fictitious owners, then published notices representing himself as the owner. He subsequently sold the lands to seven buyers, receiving ₱3.7 million without remitting any proceeds to complainants.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Glenn C. Gacott should be held administratively liable based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further proceedings. The Court found the investigation procedurally deficient. The IBP Investigating Commissioner relied solely on position papers and documentary evidence, including affidavits, without conducting formal hearings. This deprived the parties of the opportunity for cross-examination and the IBP of the chance to assess witness credibility directly.
The legal logic is grounded in the fundamental requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, especially those as severe as disbarment. The Court emphasized that the IBP Commissioner possessed the power to issue subpoenas to compel the appearance of crucial witnesses, such as the alleged fictitious owners, the buyers of the properties, and the affiants of the submitted documents. Their live testimony was essential to verify the central allegations of fraud and ownership. By failing to utilize this investigative power and relying on unverified affidavits and documents, the proceedings were incomplete. A fair and conclusive judgment on the serious charges of misconduct could not be rendered without a more thorough examination of the facts through a formal hearing where evidence could be properly tested.