Case Digest: Basagan vs. Atty. Espina, AC No. 8395, July 8, 2020

Evidence | Rule 130

Petitioner: Lorna C. Basagan

Respondent: Atty. Domingo Espina

Gaerlan, J,

Recit Ver:

The original document is the best evidence of the contents thereof. A photocopy must be disregarded, for it is unworthy of any probative value and inadmissible in evidence.

Disbarment or suspension protects the public from unworthy lawyers; however, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, who must provide substantial evidence. In this case, the complainant, Basagan, failed to present original documents to support her claims against Atty. Espina, and her reliance on photocopies and unverified affidavits did not meet the evidentiary requirements. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove any violation, reinforcing the presumption of innocence. The disbarment complaint against Atty. Espina was dismissed for lack of merit.

Facts:

• Lorna C. Basagan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Domingo Espina for violating Rule IV, Section 3(c) of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. 

• Sec. 3. Disqualifications.—A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

x x x x

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

• She sought his preventive suspension and disciplinary action for notarizing contracts signed by his wife, Mayor Rizalina B. Espina, related to a government project in Libagon, Southern Leyte. 

• Background of Contracts:

• Land Bank of the Philippines received a loan from the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (now JBIC) for local government projects.

• The loan amount was ¥6,072,000 for financing housing, health, sanitation, and other infrastructure projects.

• On October 10, 2005, Mayor Espina entered a subsidiary loan agreement with Landbank for P19,045,600 to develop the Libagon Water System - Level III.

• A contract for consultancy services was signed with POIEL Engineering and Management Services for P1,042,099.30 for the detailed  engineering design and construction supervision of the Project.

• A project agreement was also made with Legacy Construction for P18,598,000 to furnish the equipment, materials, labor, tools, transportation.

• Basagan alleged the project was anomalous, and a case was filed by the Association of Barangay Councils with the Ombudsman.

• Atty. Espina provided an evaluation report from the Ombudsman dismissing Basagan's prior complaint against him.

Investigating Commissioner Gina H. Mirano-Jesena of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD):

• Issued a report stating that Atty. Domingo Espina committed a serious error by notarizing documents, including the Subsidiary Loan Agreement, Contract for Consultancy Services, and Project Agreement, which were signed by his wife, the Mayor of Libagon. 

• Recommendations:

• Atty. Espina should be suspended from practicing law for one year.

• Suspension from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.

Board of Governors of the IBP:

• Adopted the findings and recommendations with modifications:

• Six months suspension from the practice of law.

• Two years disqualification from holding a commission as a notary public, with immediate effect if currently engaged.

Held:

The original document is the best evidence of the contents thereof. A photocopy must be disregarded, for it is unworthy of any probative value and inadmissible in evidence. 

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those who adhere to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession, and regularly pay membership fees to the IBP to remain as a member of good standing of the bar.

Certainly, the practice of law is so delicately imbued with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of this Court to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. Beyond question, any breach by a lawyer of any of these standards makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients must repose in him, and renders him unfit to continue in the exercise of his professional privilege.

Both disbarment and suspension demonstrably operationalize this intent to protect the courts and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession.

However, in consideration of the gravity of the consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the bar, the Court has consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his/her complaint through substantial evidence. A complainant's failure to dispense the same standard of proof does not oblige respondents to prove their exception or defense, and requires no other conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment or suspension order.

With all evidence presented and claims considered, the Court now deviates from the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.

The factual findings and recommendations of the CBD and the Board of Governors of the IBP are recommendatory. The Court is neither bound by its findings, much less, obliged to accept the same as a matter of course because as the tribunal which has the final say on the proper sanctions to be imposed on errant members of both bench and bar, the Court has the prerogative of making its own findings and rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG, or any lower court to whom an administrative complaint has been referred for investigation and report. 

Based on the evidence presented by the complainant, this Court is certain that she failed to discharge her duty to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish her claim by the amount of evidence required by law. 

To begin with, Basagan, to prove her asseveration that Atty. Espina violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, appended to her complaint photocopies, not the original, of the Subsidiary Loan Agreement, Contract for Consultancy Services, Project Agreement, and letters between Tito E. Calooy, Jr. (Calooy) and Romulo Endico.

Apart from the photocopies of documents she presented, Basagan also submitted the Affidavit of Calooy. Upon perusal of the said document, this Court learned that the second page of the three-page Affidavit was likewise a photocopy. What makes it more dubious is the fact that the signature of the affiant was not original. The erasures on the details of the proof of identity of Calooy are not just noticeable but exceptionally remarkable.

Although a disbarment proceeding may not be akin to a criminal prosecution, if the entire body of proof consists mainly of the documentary evidence, and the content of which will prove either the falsity or veracity of the charge for disbarment, then the documents themselves, as submitted into evidence, must comply with the Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, save for an established ground that would merit exception. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 130 specifically provide:

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:  

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;

3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

Sec. 4. Original document. —

1. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

2. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.

3. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.

In this case, a perusal of the documents on which the complaint is anchored divulges that the photocopies are not at the least certified true copies, neither were they testified on by any witness who is in a position to establish the authenticity of the document. Neither was the source of the document shown for the participation of the complainant in its execution. This fact gives rise to the query, where did these documents come from?

To foster her claims, Basagan attached the Affidavit of Dolores Cahucom (Cahucom) who claimed that she has direct knowledge that Atty. Espina notarized the subject documents. Unfortunately, Cahucom merely expressed a general statement. She failed to give specific details as to how she acquired such "direct knowledge" that Atty. Espina notarized the documents. The absence of specific details on how she acquired her "direct knowledge" makes her statements inadequate to equate it as personal knowledge of the facts to be accorded probative value.

Here, Basagan clearly failed to adduce substantial and admissible evidence to prove her case. The original documents should have been presented to comply with the Best Evidence Rule. Basagan likewise failed to show proof as to the reasons for the unavailability of the original copy. She could have proven the contents of the documents following the provisions of Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

The necessary import and rationale behind the requirement under the Best Evidence Rule is the avoidance of the dangers of mistransmissions and inaccuracies of the content of the documents. This is squarely true in the present disbarment complaint, with a main charge that turns on the very accuracy, completeness, and authenticity of the documents submitted into evidence. It is therefore non sequitur to surmise that this crucial preference for the original may be done away with or applied liberally in this case.

Elementary is the rule that photocopies of documents have no probative value and are inadmissible in evidence. Likewise, unsubstantiated general statements are unavailing and simply cannot suffice. Hence, there is no substantial evidence to prove the alleged violation complained of.

The Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he/she is innocent of charges against him/her until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he/she is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his/her oath.

WHEREFORE, the disbarment complaint against Atty. Domingo P. Espina is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his records.