G.R. No. A.C. No. 9881; June 4, 2014
ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute among neighbors in the “Times Square” compound in Quezon City. The clients of respondent Atty. Manuel T. Molina (Mr. and Mrs. Wilson Lim) entered into an agreement titled “Times Square Preamble” with other unit owners, establishing rules on common areas, parking, and security. The client of complainant Atty. Alan F. Paguia (Mr. Gregorio M. Abreu) was not a signatory to this agreement due to disagreements over parking terms. Atty. Paguia filed an administrative complaint for Dishonesty against Atty. Molina with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, alleging that Atty. Molina advised his clients that the “Times Square Preamble” was binding on Mr. Abreu, a non-party to the contract. Atty. Molina defended the agreement as necessary for maintaining order and noted that Mr. Abreu had filed two cases (with the HLURB and for declaratory relief) challenging the preamble, both of which were dismissed. He also cited a separate case filed by his clients (Civil Case No. Q-08-63579) where the RTC granted injunctive relief against Mr. Abreu for blocking their gate. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of merit, citing bare allegations and absence of proof of malice or bad faith. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Atty. Paguia filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He received notice of the denial on March 21, 2013, but did not file a petition for review with the Supreme Court within the 15-day period required under Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Manuel T. Molina should be held administratively liable for Dishonesty based on allegations that he gave legal advice to his clients that a contract (“Times Square Preamble”) was binding on a non-party (Mr. Abreu).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The case was deemed terminated due to Atty. Paguia’s failure to file a petition for review with the Court within 15 days from notice of the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution, as mandated by Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B. Nevertheless, the Court reviewed the records and found no reason to deviate from the IBP’s findings. The complainant failed to meet the required quantum of proof (clearly preponderant evidence) and burden of proof. The allegation that Atty. Molina gave such legal advice was unsubstantiated, as there was no evidence presented that he actually provided the advice or that it was attended by bad faith or malice. The Court emphasized that lawyers are not expected to know all the law and are not liable for honest mistakes or errors absent proof of bad faith. Bad faith is never presumed and must be proven as a question of fact. Since no evidence of bad faith was presented, the presumption of good faith stood. Thus, the complaint was without factual basis.