Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81954:55971&catid=1572&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:01:38+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 09, 2013 - LILIA TABANG AND CONCEPCION TABANG, Complainsnts, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.
LILIA TABANG AND CONCEPCION TABANG, Complainsnts, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.
Alleging that respondent committed gross misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit, complainants filed their complaint directly with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on February 3, 2003. The case was docketed as Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Case No. 03-1054.
In her Report and Recommendation dated March 4, 2004,14 IBP Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In a Resolution dated April 16, 2004,15 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report of Commissioner Navarro. However, the IBP Board of Governors increased the penalty to disbarment. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
In a Resolution dated September 29, 2004,16 the Supreme Court remanded the case to the IBP. The Court noted that majority of the pieces of evidence presented by complainants were mere photocopies and affidavits and that the persons who supposedly executed such documents were neither presented nor subpoenaed. Thus, there could not have been adequate basis for sustaining the imposition of a penalty as grave as disbarment.
The complainants presented several witnesses. One was Dieter Heinze, President of the Swiss American Lending Corporation.18 Heinze testified that in April 2001, a friend introduced him to respondent who, in turn, introduced himself as the owner of seven (7) parcels in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. They agreed on the purchase of a lot priced at P900,000.00. His company, however, paid only P668,000.00. Heinze noted that his company withheld payment upon his realization that Lilia Tabang had caused the annotation of an adverse claim and upon respondent’s failure to produce Leonor Petronio, the alleged lot owner.
Another of complainants’ witnesses was Atty. Agerico Paras.19 He testified that Heinze introduced him to respondent who, in turn, introduced himself as the owner of seven (7) parcels in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. They agreed on the purchase of a lot priced at P2,300,000.00. He paid for the said parcel in two (2) installments. Upon learning that Lilia Tabang had caused the annotation of an adverse claim, he wrote to respondent asking him to either work on the cancellation of the claim or to reimburse him. He added that respondent was unable to produce Amelia Andes, the ostensible owner of the parcel he had purchased.
Teodoro Gallinero, another buyer of one of the seven parcels, also testified for complainants.20 He testified that in February 2001, he was introduced to respondent who claimed that several parcels with a total area of thirty (30) hectares were owned by his mother. Gallinero agreed to purchase a parcel for the price of P2,000,000.00 which he paid in cash and in kind (L-300 van).
On July 25, 2007, Commissioner Funa required the complainants to submit their Position Paper. Respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration and the Inhibition of Commissioner Funa who, respondent claimed, deprived him of the chance to cross-examine complainants’ witnesses, and was “bent on prejudicing”22 him.
Commissioner Funa then inhibited himself. Following this, the case was reassigned to Investigating Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco.
On July 30, 2009, respondent filed his Position Paper.24 Subsequently, the case was deemed submitted for Commissioner Limpingco’s Report and Recommendation.
In his Position Paper, respondent noted that he filed criminal complaints against Lilia Tabang on account of Tabang’s statement that she had fabricated the identities of the owners of the seven (7) parcels. He claimed that since 1996, he had relied on the Torrens Titles of the seven (7) owners who were introduced to him by Lilia Tabang. He asserted that Lilia Tabang could not have been the owner of the seven (7) parcels since the SPAs executed by the parcels’ owners clearly made her a mere agent and him a sub-agent. He also assailed the authenticity of the public announcements (where he supposedly offered the seven 7 parcels for sale) and Memorandum of Agreement. He surmised that the signatures on such documents appearing above the name “Glenn C. Gacott” had been mere forgeries and crude duplications of his own signature.
In his Report and Recommendation dated August 23, 2010,25 Commissioner Limpingco found respondent liable for gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR. He likewise noted that respondent was absent in most of the hearings without justifiable reason, in violation of Rule 12.04 of the CPR.26 He recommended that respondent be disbarred and his name, stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
On October 8, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution27 adopting the Report of Investigating Commissioner Limpingco.
Respondent then filed his Notice of Appeal with the IBP on August 8, 2011.
On August 17, 2011, respondent filed before the Supreme Court his Urgent Motion for Extension of Time (to file Petition for Review/Appeal). On September 20, 2011, the Court granted respondent’s Motion and gave him an extension of thirty (30) days to file his Appeal. The Supreme Court warned respondent that no further extension will be given. Despite this, respondent filed two (2) more Motions for Extension – the first on September 29, 2011 and the second on November 3, 2011 – both of which were denied by the Court.
Despite the Court’s denials of his Motions for Extension, respondent filed on December 14, 2011 a Motion to Admit Petition for Review/Appeal (with attached Petition/Appeal). This Motion was denied by the Court on April 17, 2012.
For resolution is the issue of whether or not respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus warranting his disbarment.
After a careful examination of the records, the Court concurs with and adopts the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Limpingco and the IBP Board of Governors. It is clear that respondent committed gross misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit in violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR when he executed the revocations of SPAs and affidavits of recovery and in arrogating for himself the ownership of the seven (7) subject parcels.
While it may be true that complainant Lilia Tabang herself engaged in illicit activities, the complainant’s own complicity does not negate, or even mitigate, the repugnancy of respondent’s offense. Quite the contrary, his offense is made even graver. He is a lawyer who is held to the highest standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Perverting what is expected of him, he deliberately and cunningly took advantage of his knowledge and skill of the law to prejudice and torment other individuals. Not only did he countenance illicit action, he instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce to injustice, he orchestrated it. Thus, We impose upon respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.
In Brennisen v. Contawi:29 Respondent Atty. Ramon U. Contawi was disbarred for having used a spurious SPA to mortgage and sell property entrusted to him for administration.
In Sabayle v. Tandayag:30 One of the respondents, Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor, was disbarred for having acknowledged a Deed of Sale in the absence of the purported vendors and for taking advantage of his position as Assistant Clerk of Court by purchasing one-half (1/2) of the land covered by said Deed of Sale knowing that the deed was fictitious.
In Daroy v. Legaspi:31 The Court disbarred respondent Atty. Ramon Legaspi for having converted to his personal use the funds that he received for his clients.
The number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
In this case, complainants have shown by a preponderance of evidence that respondent committed gross misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit in violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
respondent never remitted the proceeds of the sales to complainants.
More importantly, complainants’ witnesses showed that when respondent had been confronted with Lilia Tabang’s adverse claims and asked to substantiate the identities of the supposed owners of the subject parcels, he had failed to produce such persons or even show an iota of proof of their existence. In this regard, the testimonies of Dieter Heinze, Atty. Agerico Paras, and Teodoro Gallinero are particularly significant in so far as they have been made despite the fact that their interest as buyers is contrary to that of complainants’ interest as adverse claimants.
In contrast, respondent failed to present evidence to rebut complainant's allegations.
Respondent’s defense centered on his insistence that the owners of the seven parcels were not fictitious and that they had voluntarily sold the seven parcels. Respondent also evaded the allegations against him by flinging counter-allegations. For instance, he alleged that Lilia Tabang had unsuccessfully demanded a “balato” from the proceeds of the sale of the subject parcels and that after she had been refused, she threatened to defame respondent and seek his disbarment. In support of this allegation, he pointed out that he had filed criminal complaints against Lilia Tabang. He also surmised that the signatures on the subject documents appearing above the name “Glenn C. Gacott” were mere forgeries and crude duplications of his signature.
Per Rule 131, Section 1 of the Rules of Court,37 the burden of proof is vested upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any fact in issue. Thus, in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez38 where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of his defense, the determination that he committed the violation is sustained.
It was incumbent upon respondent to prove his allegation that the supposed owners of the seven parcels are real persons. Quite the contrary, he failed to produce the slightest proof of their identities and existence, much less produce their actual persons. As to his allegations regarding Lilia Tabang’s supposed extortion and threat and the forgery or crude duplication of his signature, they remain just that – allegations. Respondent failed to aver facts and circumstances which support these claims.
At best, respondent merely draws conclusions from the documents which form the very basis of complainants’ own allegations and which are actually being assailed by complainants as inaccurate, unreliable, and fraudulent. Respondent makes much of how Lilia Tabang could not have been the owner of the seven (7) parcels since her name does not appear on the parcels’ TCTs39 and how he merely respected the title and ownership of the ostensible owners.40 Similarly, he makes much of how Lilia Tabang was named as a mere agent in the SPAs.41 However, respondent loses sight of the fact that it is precisely the accuracy of what the TCTs and SPAs indicate and the deception they engender that are the crux of the present controversy. In urging this Court to sustain him, respondent would have us rely on the very documents assailed as fraudulent.
Rather than responding squarely to complainants’ allegations, respondent merely embarks on conjectures and ascribes motives to complainants. He accuses Lilia Tabang of demanding a “balato” of twenty percent (20%) from the proceeds of the sale of the seven parcels, and of threatening to defame him and to seek his disbarment after she had been refused. This evasive posturing notwithstanding, what is clear is that respondent failed to adduce even the slightest proof to substantiate these claims. From all indications, Lilia Tabang had sufficient basis to file the present Complaint and seek sanctions against respondent.
Given the glaring disparity between the evidence adduced by complainants and the sheer lack of evidence adduced by respondent, this Court is led to no other reasonable conclusion than that respondent committed the acts of which he is accused and that he acted in a manner that is unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly short of the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of him. Quite the contrary, he employed his knowledge and skill of the law as well as took advantage of the credulity of petitioners to secure undue gains for himself and to inflict serious damage on others. He did so over the course of several years in a sustained and unrelenting fashion and outdid his previous wrongdoing with even greater, more detestable offenses. He has hardly shown any remorse. From how he has conducted himself in these proceedings, he is all but averse to rectifying his ways and assuaging complainants’ plight. Respondent even foisted upon the IBP and this Court his duplicity by repeatedly absenting himself from the IBP’s hearings without justifiable reasons. He also vexed this Court to admit his Appeal despite his own failure to comply with the much extended period given to him, thus inviting the Court to be a party in delaying complainants’ cause. For all his perversity, respondent deserves none of this Court’s clemency.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, having clearly violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent's personal record as attorney.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
47 Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.