FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10267. June 18, 2018.]

HELEN GRADIOLA, * complainant , vs. ATTY. ROMULO A.

DELES, respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J : p

This is a Complaint 1 for disbarment filed by Helen Gradiola (Helen),

charging respondent lawyer Atty. Romulo A. Deles (respondent lawyer) with
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 9.01 and
Rule 9.02 of Canon 9; and Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 thereof. 2
Helen claimed that respondent lawyer was her counsel in a civil case
then pending before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
63354. 3 Helen asserted that respondent lawyer abetted the unauthorized
practice of law when he assigned or delegated his professional duties as her
lawyer to "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" ("Atty. Araneta"). Helen alleged that
instead of attending full time to her case, respondent lawyer allowed "Atty.
Araneta" to do the legal research works and the preparation of various
pleadings relative to the civil case.
Moreover, Helen averred that she was assured the case was in "good
hands" because respondent lawyer and "Atty. Araneta" have a "contact" in
the CA in Cebu City. Helen narrated that she was told that the CA in Cebu
City had reconsidered its April 28, 2005 Decision, as she was shown a
photocopy of a November 13, 2006 Resolution 4 of the CA in Cebu City
which, this time, declared her and her spouse as the owners of the four lots
subject-matter of the said CA-G.R. CV No. 63354. Helen added that
respondent lawyer nonetheless cautioned that their adversaries in the case
had appealed to the Supreme Court, hence they had to prepare their own
"position paper" 5 to support the appeal before this Court. And, that
naturally, this would inevitably entail monetary expenses.
"Atty. Araneta" soon billed Helen for these expenses and issued her all
the receipts 6 for these payments. These receipts all bore the signatures
"Atty. Ernie/Ernesto Araneta." From May 2005 until October 26, 2006, Helen
paid this "Atty. Araneta" a total of P207,500.00. Helen claimed that this
"Atty. Araneta" split the attorney's fees with respondent lawyer.
However, to her chagrin and dismay, Helen discovered that this "Atty.
Araneta" had not only been disbarred from the practice of law; but worse,
the aforementioned November 13, 2006 CA Resolution was a total
fabrication, even as the "position paper" that was supposedly filed with this
Court was an utter simulation. With this discovery, Helen went herself to the
CA in Cebu City, and there found out, as a matter of fact, that she and her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 husband had lost their case, as shown in a genuine copy of the February 10,
2006 CA Resolution, 7 which denied their Motion for Reconsideration, as well
as their Supplemental Manifestation in Support of their Motion for
Reconsideration in said CA-G.R. CV No. 63354. And, even more distressing,
the records likewise revealed that this genuine Resolution had become final
and irrevocable, thereby forever foreclosing their right to pursue further
reliefs in the case.
Whereupon, Helen immediately filed with the City Prosecutor of
Bacolod City a criminal complaint 8 for estafa through falsification of public
document against respondent lawyer and "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta." The
City Prosecutor of Bacolod City found Helen's criminal complaint well
grounded, and instituted a criminal information therefor, now pending before
Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City. 9
Helen likewise filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against
respondent lawyer before the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP). This is the case at bench.
The IBP issued its Order 10 directing respondent lawyer to submit his
Answer. In a Manifestation, 11 John P. Deles (John), respondent lawyer's
eldest son, informed the IBP, that about three weeks before receipt of the
IBP's Order, his father suffered a stroke and underwent a brain surgery. John
implored the IBP to hold in abeyance this administrative case until his father
is finally able to physically and intelligently file an Answer to Helen's
complaint. John claimed that at that time, his father could hardly move and
could not talk. He submitted pictures of his father and a medical certificate.
Helen, however, asserted that the proceedings could not be indefinitely
suspended considering that respondent lawyer could very well hire his own
counsel. 12
John then filed a Supplemental Manifestation 13 informing the IBP that
his father was "in a vegetative state" and committing to update the IBP of
his father's medical condition.
The Investigating Commissioner, however, denied John's request and
directed respondent lawyer to file his Answer. 14
Atty. Carlito V. Mampang Jr. (Atty. Mampang) tendered the required
Answer 15 to the administrative complaint, which was signed by John, and
not by respondent lawyer. Atty. Mampang qualified in the Answer that it was
his friend John who secured his services pro bono. The counsel averred, that
as of the date of filing the Answer, respondent lawyer, dependent on his
children's help, could not communicate to explain his side as he remained in
a vegetative state, unable to speak, and had lost his motor skills.
Notably, the Answer filed on respondent lawyer's behalf relied chiefly
on (a) "Atty. Araneta's" counter-affidavit 16 dated August 21, 2008 which the
latter submitted to the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City; and (b) "Atty.
Araneta's" letter 17 addressed to Helen's counsel dated June 4, 2008.
The Answer further painted respondent lawyer as a victim too of the
chicanery perpetrated by "Atty. Araneta," and that respondent lawyer was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 not Helen's counsel of record; that although respondent lawyer's name
appeared in the fictitious pleadings, the signatures appearing thereon were
not by respondent lawyer. To substantiate this claim, Atty. Mampang
submitted for comparison machine or xerox copies of respondent lawyer's
alleged pleadings 18 in some cases whereon he signed as counsel of record.
Report and Recommendation 19 of the Investigating Commissioner and the
Board of Governors
On February 23, 2010, the Investigating Commissioner, Oliver A.
Cachapero, recommended respondent lawyer's suspension from the practice
of law for one year for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.1 and Rule
10.2 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rejecting the defense that respondent lawyer was in no way at all
involved in CA-G.R. CV No. 63354, the Investigating Commissioner found
that Helen had consistently maintained that she directly employed and dealt
solely with respondent lawyer as her counsel; and that, indeed, the
pleadings that Helen submitted in evidence before the IBP showed that
these were signed and subscribed by respondent lawyer as Helen's counsel.
Furthermore, based on "Atty. Araneta's" counter-affidavit which,
among others, mentioned "Carlo Sanchez" as "contact man" in Cebu City,
the Investigating Commissioner had reasonable grounds to believe that
"Atty. Araneta" (as well as respondent lawyer) was part of a wide-ranging
racket that plagued, and even extended to the CA at Cebu City — a racket
which enabled Ernesto (and by extension respondent lawyer) to bilk and milk
unsuspecting litigants of huge sums of money in exchange for the
"successful" follow-up of cases, which in this case, turned out to be nothing
else but a fly-by-night hustle and swindle. The Investigating Commissioner
also gave short shrift to respondent lawyer's claim that Helen in fact knew of
"Atty. Araneta's" scheme, especially of the fact that he had a "contact man"
in the CA in Cebu, and pointed to the fact that Helen had never ever
mentioned this "Carlo Sanchez" in her complaint. The Investigating
Commissioner even doubted the existence of "Carlo Sanchez," and
suggested that "Carlo Sanchez" could be a mere lure or decoy to divert
attention away from the committed shenanigans. Thus, the Investigating
Commissioner concluded:
With the foregoing disquisition, the performance of a series of
odious acts which saw the hapless Complainant being extorted huge
amount of money and the participation of Respondent are all too
evident. Respondent's participation and knowledge of the same in
every stage can be traced from his willfull introduction of Araneta into
the defense panel of Complainant. 20
The IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2013-511, 21 adopted
and approved the Investigating Commissioner's findings and
recommendation.

The Court's Ruling

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]

 There seems to be truth that "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" was not a
lawyer at all as Helen was made to believe. His name does not appear in the
Law List, 22 and there seems to be truth to the information Helen gathered
that this "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" was disbarred because in A.C. No. 1109
(which this Court promulgated on April 27, 2005), this Court ordered the
disbarment of a certain "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" due to his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude.
While "Atty. Araneta" admitted of his involvement in a fraudulent
scheme in defrauding litigants that included Helen, we cannot immediately
conclude that respondent lawyer himself was likewise part of this racket that
duped Helen. It must be stressed that, because of his medical condition,
respondent lawyer could not yet explain his side. While indeed, an Answer
was filed, it was John who signed the same and not respondent lawyer. As
such, we still cannot consider respondent lawyer to have been adequately
represented.
A full-dress investigation involving a careful evaluation of evidence
from both of the parties is necessary to resolve factual issues. The serious
imputations hurled at respondent lawyer warrant an observance of due
process, i.e., to accord him the opportunity to explain his side of the story.
We explained:
Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-
type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where
opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through
pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process. x x x The
standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals
allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored.
In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due
process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely
on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by
the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct
testimony." 23
We note that Atty. Mampang candidly declared that it was John who
consulted him and sought his legal services, and, thus, it cannot be said that
respondent lawyer voluntarily and intelligently accepted Atty. Mampang to
represent him. Respondent lawyer, with his condition, could not even
communicate with Atty. Mampang regarding the case at the time of filing of
the Answer, which compelled the counsel to merely rely on the available
documents. In effect, Atty. Mampang substituted his judgment for that of
respondent lawyer.
Significantly, the Answer contained the following disavowals by Atty.
Mampang:
5. That the Respondent as of now may be said to have lost most of
his essential human faculties, such as speech, motor, even his
bowel movement, and he eat[s] only through the help of his
children. Literally, he is in vegetative state, and his life is
dependent only on the help, both physical and financial, of his
children. He was discharged from the hospital, not because he
has recovered but rather because his children do not have
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 money anymore to pay for his hospital bills. As of now, the only
"medical development" is that the tube used in feeding him was
removed, and he is feeding through the help of his daughter, the
younger sister of John P. Deles;
6. That it is on this premise that this counsel has to rely solely on
the documents available, such as those annexed in the complaint
filed by the complainant, as Respondent cannot convey any idea
pertinent to the actual incidents of this case that would explain
his side on the allegations contained in the complaint.
xxx xxx xxx
7. That [neither] this counsel [nor Respondent's son John Deles]
have in [their] possession, neither [do they have] other relevant
documents x x x so that this answer for the Respondent is simply
couched on facts, documents and records available, [primarily]
the Affidavit-Complaint of Helen Gradiola[. This] counsel cannot
in anyway relate, comprehend or decipher [communication] from
[Respondent], as he is incapable of uttering, communicating or
responding to any question[s] ask[ed] of him; 24
With respondent lawyer not yet in a position to factually dispute the
accusations and defend himself, and considering that there was no
established lawyer-client relationship at all between him and Atty. Mampang,
albeit the latter acted for respondent lawyer's best interest, proceeding with
the investigation of the administrative case against him would amount to a
denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard.
This Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal
presumption that he is innocent of charges against him until the contrary is
proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have
performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 25 "For the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent [lawyer]
must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Indeed,
considering the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that a clear
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty." 26 "The burden of proof in disbarment and
suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant."
27

Under the circumstances, both duty and conscience impel us to

remand this administrative case for further proceedings. Fairness cannot be
ignored.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XX-2013-511 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. This
case is ordered REMANDED to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation, report and
recommendation. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby instructed
to: 1) require respondent lawyer's son, John P. Deles, to provide an update
on his father's health condition and, on the basis of such update; 2) to hold
the case in abeyance if respondent lawyer's stroke aftermath has
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 significantly impaired his cognitive ability and speech that he is not capable
of presenting his defense or 3) to direct respondent lawyer to file his Answer
and continue with the proceedings if he is found to be medically fit and his
condition having improved over time, having regained his cognitive and
communication skills.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, ** Jardeleza, Tijam and Gesmundo, *** JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Also spelled as Grandiola in some parts of the records.

** Per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018.
*** Per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1. Rollo , pp. 2-4.
2. CANON 9 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
  Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the bar in good standing.
  Rule 9.02 — A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
  a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that,
upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time
to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or

  b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a

deceased lawyer; or

  c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement

plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
arrangement.
  CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
  Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
  Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
3. Entitled Spouses Antonio and Helen Gradiola, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Neville Y.
Lamis and Lilluza L. Yu and Spouses Rodolfo B. Bausing and Ma. Consolacion
Bausing, Defendants-Appellees.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]

 4. Rollo , pp. 5-7.

5. Id. at 8-11. Helen likewise attached the supposed position paper filed with the SC
by their opponent in the case; id . at 12-15.

6. Id. at 23, 25, 26-28.

7. Id. at 16-18.
8. Id. at 19-22.
9. Id. at 82. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 08-31970.
10. Id. at 56.

11. Id. at 57.

12. Id. at 65.
13. Id. at 72.
14. Id. at 75.
15. Id. at 80-86.

16. Id. at 103-104.

17. Id. at 105.
18. Id. at 106-115.
19. Id. at 131-133.

20. Id. at 133.

21. Id. at 130.
22. [Link] last visited on June 7,
2018.
23. Samalio v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 456, 465-466 (2005).
24. Rollo , pp. 81-82.
25. Aba v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., 678 Phil. 588, 601 (2011).

26. Bellosillo v. Board of Governors of the IBP, 520 Phil. 676, 689 (2006).
27. Joven v. Atty. Cruz, 715 Phil. 531, 538 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]