A.C. No. 11603. June 19, 2017

THIRD DIVISION [ A.C. No. 11603, June 19, 2017 ] SPOUSES EDWIN S. CHUA AND GRETA A. CHUA VS. ATTY. RUDY T. TASARRA.

The Court resolves to NOTE:

(1)
the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-740 dated October 10, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case against respondent for lack of merit;
(2)
the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-343 dated May 28, 2016 of the IBP Board of Governors denying complainants' motion for reconsideration and affirming Resolution No. XXI- 2014-740 of October 10, 2014; and
(3)
the letter dated February 6, 2017 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case.

For resolution of the Court is a complaint against respondent Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra filed by complainant spouses Edwin and Greta Chua for violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03 and Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath.The factual findings are summarized in the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP),[1] viz:
Complainants Edwin and Greta Chua, doing business under the name "Sherwin Brando Enterprises" obtained on credit glass panels and other hardware materials from Chain Glass Enterprises, Incorporated. Complainants paid by way of checks. They failed to fund the checks due to the expenses they incurred for the hospitalization of Greta Chua.

As part of the agreement, complainants were able to replace the dishonored checks with fifty-nine (59) postdated checks. Initially, forty- nine (49) checks were delivered to Chain Glass Enterprises. Of the forty- nine (49) checks, only thirteen (13) checks were honored by the drawee bank. Chain Glass Enterprises initiated the filing of the complaints for violation of B.P. 22 with four (4) replacement checks and one previous check as bases.

The complaints of Chain Glass were supported by the affidavit of Luz Talusan, an employee, who declared in her affidavit that the spouses Edwin and Greta Chua "drew, issued and delivered" the several checks to Chain Glass Enterprises despite the fact that only Greta Chua signed the checks.

Prosecutor Romeo Poso of the City Prosecutor of Manila recommended the filing of several informations against Greta Chua as she was the only one who signed the checks.

The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila which tried the cases acquitted Greta Chua.

In retaliation, complainants filed a perjury case against Luz Talusan, the Board of Directors of Chain Glass Enterprises and Arty. Rudy Tasarra. The information was filed against Luz Talusan only because she was the only one who executed the affidavit-complaint stating that Edwin and Greta Chua drew, issued and delivered the several checks to Chain Glass Enterprises when in truth, only Greta Chua signed the checks. In his resolution, Prosecutor Freddy Gomez of the City Prosecutor of Manila recommended the filing of an information against Luz Talusan for violation of Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code.

This is now the subject of the herein complaint against Atty. Rudy Tasarra. He filed a motion for reinvestigation/reconsideration on the ground that Luz Talusan could not be guilty of perjury by stating that spouses Edwin and Greta Chua drew, issued and delivered the several checks despite the fact that only Greta Chua signed the checks. This motion for reinvestigation/ reconsideration is pending before Prosecutor Freddy Gomez when this complaint against Atty. Rudy Tasarra was filed before this Office.
In his Answer,[2] respondent Tasarra said that there is no issue as to the factual circumstances mentioned. He, however, averred that he could not be guilty of violating any of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. He maintains that spouses Edwin and Greta Chua drew, issued and delivered the subject checks to Chain Glass Enterprises despite the fact that only Greta Chua signed the checks as drawee as there are several indicia of conspiracy between them:
  1. The spouses obtained the credit as operators/owners of Sherwin Brando enterprises;
  2. They were the ones who negotiated with Chain Glass Enterprises to replace the dishonored checks with postdated replacement checks;
  3. The account from which the checks were drawn against is a Joint Account of the spouses Chua;
  4. Some of the original checks which bounced were signed by Edwin Chua only;
  5. It was Edwin Chua who wrote Chain Glass Enterprises for extension of the payment of the obligations.[3]
The Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Adriano found that the complaint against Atty. Tasarra lacks merit; thus, he recommended that it be dismissed. He discussed that the insistence of herein respondent of the existence of conspiracy is legally justified. He further added other circumstances to support the conspiracy theory:
  1. Edwin Chua was the one who delivered the checks to Chain Glass Enterprises.
  2. In the affidavit-complaint of spouses Edwin and Greta Chua in support of the perjury charge, they alleged as part of the compromise agreement that "we will issue fifty-nine (59) postdated checks x xx"[4] 
The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No.XXI-2014-740 dated October 10, 2014, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex 'A ", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and considering that the Complaint lacks merit, the case against Respondent is hereby DISMISSED.
Spouses Chua filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 5 which the IBP Board of Governors denied. The new Resolution No. XXII-2016-343 dated May 28, 2016 affirming Resolution No. XXI-2014-740 reads as follows:
RESOLVED TO DENY complainants' Motion for Reconsideration, there being no new reason and / or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors.
Issue

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the respondent should be administratively sanctioned for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03 and Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath.

Ruling of the Court

After reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds Resolution No. XXI-2014-740 in accord with the pertinent rules and jurisprudence on bar discipline.

In Reyes v. Vitan,[6] we stressed that a lawyer is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and owes his entire devotion to the latter's interest. He is expected to exert his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing will be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.[7]

The need to exercise fidelity and utmost diligence to defend the cause of a client is not only inscribed in a catena of cases that this court has ruled, but were also made part of the CPR as Canons 17 and 18, which read:
Canon 17- A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Here, Atty. Tasarra, as the counsel of Chain Glass Enterprises, Inc., filed a motion for re investigation/reconsideration on the perjury case filed by spouses Chua against Luz Talusa, one of Chain Glass' employees. He merely defended Talusa from being held liable for perjury for testifying that there is conspiracy between spouses Edwin and Greta Chua in drawing, issuing and delivering the checks subject of the B.P. 22 case. A lawyer cannot be halted from fighting for the cause of his client by threats of administrative liability. He cannot be held accountable if he performs his duties in accordance with the CPR and the oath that he took as a lawyer.

WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XXI-2014-740 dated October 10, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 13-3911 is AFFIRMED. The complaint against Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

[1] CBD Case No. 13-3911, January 21, 2014.
[2] Id. at 244-251.
[3] Id. at 277.
[4] Id. at 279-285.
[5] Id. at 311.
[6] A.C. No. 5835, April 15, 2005.
[7] Mattus v. Villaseca, A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013.