Joven and Rasing vs. Cruz and Magsalin

Adrian Louis Siayngco 1A

Canon 24 – Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers  Joven and Rasing vs !tty !tty Cru" and !tty !tty #agsalin $$$, !C %o &'(',  July )*, 2+*)

actsVersion of the t he Complainants  This case is an administrative complaint for disbarment led by Jaime Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing against Attys. ablo R. Cru! and "ran#ie $. %agsalin &&& &&& for for dece deceit it'' malp malpra ract ctic ice' e' gros gross s misc miscon ondu duct ct and falsi falsic cat atio ion n of publ public ic documents. The disbarment complaint stemmed from a labor case led by complainant Joven against hil. (oteliers' &nc. and)or *usit (otel +i##o' a client of respondents, la- rm' .R. Cru! La- $ces. $n July 1/' 02' the +ational Labor Relations Commission 3+LRC4 rendered a decision in +LRC +CR CA +o. 560278. Joven,s counsel' Atty. Solon R. 9ar 9arcia' cia' recei eceive ved d thei theirr copy copy of the the deci decisi sion on on Au Augu gust st 18 18'' 0 02 2.. As to respondents' they received a copy of the decision on August 08' 02 based on the Registry Return Receipt that -as sent bac# to the +LRC. Stamped thereon -as :R;C;&<;* A=9 08 02: and signed by :tess.: Atty. 9arcia found it unusual for the respondents to receive a copy of the said decision of  the +LRC 1 days after he has received his o-n copy' considering that both la- oces of the ones representing the complainant and the respondents are located in >ue!on City. ?ith this' Atty. 9arcia as#ed for a certication from the post oce as of the actual date respondents received a copy of said decision. @ased @ased on the certi certicat cation ion complai complainan nants ts lodged lodged the instan instantt dis disbar barme ment nt complaint complaint against against responde respondents. nts. They allege allege that Teresita eresita :Tess: :Tess: Calucag' Calucag' secretary of respondents la- rm' altered the true date of receipt of the +LRC decision -hen she signed and stamped on the Registry Return Receipt the date August 08' 02 to ma#e it appear and to mislead the +LRC and the opposing party that the decision -as received on such later date and not on August 18' 02. They conclude that respondents caused the alteration of  the true date of their actual receipt -ith the intention of eBtending by ten day days the the per period -ithi thin -hic hich to le a motio otion n for for recons consiider derati ation. on. Complainants submit that the alteration of the true date of receipt done on the registry return card 3a public document4' the use of the altered date and the ma#ing of untruthful statements in a narration of facts in the artial %otion for Reconsideration Reconsideration 3also a public document4 constitute falsication of  publ public ic docu docume ment nt on seve severa rall count counts' s' dece decept ptio ion n and and gros gross s prof profes essi sion onal al misconduct. Version of the t he Defense According to the respondents' the mentioned decision -as received by one of the sta of their la- oce' (enry Agellon. The latter usually receives mails mails -hen -hen Tess Caluca Calucag' g' the oce oce secre secretar tary' y' is busy busy or is not around around.. *uring August 18' 02' there -ere 8 mails that -as received by Agellon -hich -as evidenced by a receipt dated on the same day. $n August 08' 02' another batch of mails -ere received but this time by Tess Calucag.  The mista#e arose -hen Calucag' having believed that the decision -as received among those registered mails -hich -ere delivered on August 08'

stamped the Registry Return Card of the said decision and signed them as received on the same date. Respondents' merely relying on the records of their secretary' follo-ed the said date in drafting their motion for reconsideration pertaining to the decision of the +LRC. They contended that they did not in any -ay act -ith fraud' malice' deceit' nor -ith gross misconduct. The arguments of the complainants are mere self7serving and does not totally prove that the respondents induced their secretary to alter the date of the receipt of the said decision.

$ssue?hether or not Atty. Cru! and Atty. %agsalin &&& should be suspended or disbarred on the grounds of deceit' malpractice' and gross misconductD Ruling+o. The complaint -as correctly dismissed by the &@ for lac# of merit.  The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings al-ays rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court eBercises its disciplinary po-er only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that -arrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule' an attorney enEoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an ocer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance -ith his oath. &n this case' complainants failed to discharge their burden of proving respondents administrative liability. ?hile there is incongruity bet-een said certication and the records of respondents la- rm as to -hen the subEect +LRC decision -as actually received by the latter' there is no clear and convincing evidence presented by complainants that respondents maliciously made it appear that they received the decision on a date ten days later than -hat is reFected on the record. Complainants -ould li#e to convince this Court that the only logical eBplanation as to the discrepancy is that Calucag' a secretary under the employ of respondents' -as ordered by respondents to stamp a much later date instead of the actual date of receipt for the purpose of eBtending by ten7day period -ithin -hich to le a %otion for Reconsideration under the +LRC Rules of rocedure. Clearly' such claim is merely anchored on speculation and conEecture and not bac#ed by any clear preponderant evidence necessary to Eustify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the @ar. &t is li#e-ise -orthy to note that the registry return card -hich the >CC$ itself returned to the +LRC corroborates respondents claim that to their #no-ledge' their la- rm actually received the subEect +LRC decision on August 08' 02' after relying on the date of receipt relayed to them by their secretary and as stamped by the latter on their copy of the subEect +LRC decision. ?e nd merit in respondents argument that had Calucag stamped the -rong date on the Registry Return Card' the postman -ho had full vieof the receiving and stamping' -ould have called Calucags attention to correct the same or he -ould Eust have refused to receive the same altogether considering that it -as erroneous. (aving accepted the Registry Return Card -ith the date August 08' 02 stamped on it as the date of  receipt can only mean that the postman considered it as correct.

Also' the registered mails delivered on August 18' 02 -ere received by Agellon -hich eBplains his signature appearing on the postmans logboo# for said date. The fact that the Registry Return Card -as signed by Calucag' and not by Agellon' buttresses respondents contention that the subEect +LRC decision may not have been among the registered mails received on August 18' 02 by Agellon. $ther-ise' it should be Agellon, s signature that -ould appear on the Registry Return Card and not Calucag,s. ?(;R;"$R;' the instant administrative complaint against respondents Attys. ablo R. Cru! and "ran#ie $. %agsalin &&& is *&S%&SS;* for lac# of merit.