TOPIC: Formal Investigation as Mandatory Requirement

FACTS:
Complainants, Lilia Tabang (Lilia) and her mother, Concepcion Tabang, filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a verified complaint for disbarment or suspension against
respondent Atty. Glenn C. Gacott for gross misconduct, deceit and gross dishonesty.

Sometime between 1984 and 1985, Lilia sought the legal advice of then incumbent
Judge Eustaquio Gacott, father of herein respondent, regarding her desire to buy a 30-hectare
agricultural land. Judge Gacott informed Lilia that under the agrarian reform program of the
government, she is prohibited from acquiring vast tracks of agricultural land, as she already
owns other parcels of land. Judge Gacott then advised her to put the title of the lands in the
names of fictitious persons and to keep the titles with her for easy disposition.

Following the advice of Judge Gacott, Lilia bought the parcels of land using fictitious
names. Eventually, Lilia was able to secure individual titles over these parcels of land in the
names of 7 fictitious persons

Respondent knows this fact. Later on, Lilia and Concepcion decided to sell the subject
parcels of land because they needed money for their medication and other necessary
expenses. Respondent borrowed the seven land titles from complainants and told them that he
would help them sell the properties.

Despite the lapse of one year from the time he borrowed the titles, respondent still failed
to negotiate the sale of the property. He informed herein complainants that he lost all the seven
land titles. Respondent then advised complainants to file a petition in court for re-issuance of
title.

Lilia, in the guise of acting as the “authorized agent-representative” of the fictitious

owners, filed a case for the re-issuance of title to the seven parcels of land. However, the public
prosecutor noticed that the signatures of the alleged owners in the seven SPAs appear to have
been signed by the same person because of the similarities in their strokes. The public
prosecutor informed the trial court and the trial court summoned the alleged principals. Lilia
withdrew the case to avoid embarrassment and possible sanctions. Subsequently, Lilia filed a
new set of cases for re-issuance of title, changing the signatures of the fictitious owners.

When respondent knew that a new set of case was filed, he executed or caused to be
executed several documents, among which were Revocation of Special Power of Attorney and
Affidavits of Recovery purportedly signed by the principals of Lilia.

Respondent caused the publication of a notice representing himself as the owner of the subject
parcels of land and indicating therein his desire to sell the said properties. Respondent was able
to sell the seven parcels of land to seven individuals. However, only three of these buyers were
legitimate, while the remaining four are dummies of respondent.

Complainants contend that in executing the various revocation of the SPAs and affixing
thereon the signatures of the fictitious owners and in arrogating the ownership of the properties,
respondent committed gross misconduct, dishonesty and deceit.
 Respondent filed his Answer to the Complaint denying the material allegations of the
complainants. He claims that the seven land titles covering the subject properties are valid and
duly executed; and denies complainants' allegations that the alleged owners are fictitious.
IBP Commissioner found respondent guilty and recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for six months. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted
the report but modified the recommended penalty to disbarment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty and deceit

RULING:

The case should be remanded for further proceedings.

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard
of his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming an attorney.

The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Considering the serious
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Supreme Court has
consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty.

In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement

which may not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons. Rule 139-B
provides for the procedure of investigation in disbarment and disciplinary proceedings against
attorneys before the IBP, thus:

Sec. 8. Investigation. — Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the

respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the
investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and
administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to
present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if
upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte.

The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from
the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of
Governors upon prior application.

Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued
by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The
corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of
Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10)
days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if
necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings
before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within
fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors
shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its
findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme
Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.

In the present case, the Investigating Commissioner initiated the formal investigation by
conducting a mandatory conference between the complainants and the respondent after both
parties have filed their complaint and answer, respectively. The mandatory conference was
supposedly held for the purpose of de􀀹ng the issues and enabling the parties to stipulate facts.
However, no definitive result was reached during the conference as respondent continued to
deny all the allegations of the complainants. After the mandatory conference was held, no
further hearings were conducted. Instead, the Investigating Commissioner merely required the
parties to submit their respective position papers, including all the necessary documents and
duly verified a􀁈davits of witnesses, if any. On the sole basis of the pleadings filed by both
parties and of the documents attached thereto, the Investigating Commissioner submitted her
Report and Recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors.

The Investigating Commissioner should not have simply relied on the parties' position
papers and the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by them. She should have
proceeded
with the investigation by conducting formal hearings and calling upon the parties to present
additional evidence to support their respective contentions. In the case of the complainants, the
Investigating Commissioner should have required the presentation of the persons who allegedly
executed the affidavits presented in evidence to prove the veracity of the allegations contained
in said affidavits, at the same time affording respondent the opportunity to cross-examine the
supposed affiants. The failure of the complainants to move for the presentation of the persons
alleged to have executed the subject affidavits does not render the IBP powerless to conduct
further investigation, considering its power to issue subpoena under the Rule.

Consequently, no judgment could be rendered fairly and squarely on the issues raised
in the subject administrative matter.