A.C. No. 3452 - HENRY SAMONTE, VS. ATTY. GINES ABELLANA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Gines Abellana be disbarred from the practice of law for resorting to false and/or deceitful practices, and for failure to exercise honesty and trustworthiness as befits a member of the bar. (Bold emphasis supplied) On June 5, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, suspended Atty. Abellana from the practice of law for one year, to wit: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above- entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex A, and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for resorting to falsehood and/or deceitful practices, and for failure to exercise honesty and trustworthiness as befits member of the Bar, Atty. Gines N. Abellana is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year . [31] (Bold emphasis supplied) On September 25, 2008, Atty. Abellana moved for reconsideration based on the following grounds: [32] That the imposition of sanction for the suspension of the undersigned from the practice of law for one (1) year is too stiff in relation to the alleged unethical conduct committed by the respondent; That the findings of the investigating commissioner is not fully supported with evidence; That the complaint of the complainant is not corroborated by testimonial evidence so that it is hearsay and self-serving. In support of his motion, Atty. Abellana rehashed most of his previous arguments, and stated that the enumerations of failures are belied by the existence of Reply to counterclaims, which were attached as Annexes 8 and 9 of the Position Paper of respondent. [33] It is noted, however, that Annex 8 and Annex 9 of Atty. Abellanas position paper were different documents, namely: Annex 8 [34] ( Manifestation and Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Change Counsel ); and Annex 9 [35] ( Manifestation ). Nonetheless, he argued that both documents were already part of the records of the case, and that anyway Atty. Geronimo V. Nazareth, the Branch Clerk of Court, did not execute any affidavit or certification to the effect that both documents were inexistent. He reminded that Samonte had only said that both documents seemed to be falsified documents based on the certification of Atty. Nazareth on the official rubber stamp of the court. The IBP required Samonte to comment on Atty. Abellanas motion for reconsideration. [36] In his comment dated October 21, 2008, [37] Samonte reiterated his allegations against Atty. Abellana; insisted that Atty. Abellana did not refute the charges against him; and noted that the reply that Atty. Abellana had supposedly filed in the case was not even annexed either to his position paper and motion for reconsideration. On December 16, 200