A.C. No. 7329 - SPOUSES DAVID AND MARISA WILLIAMS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the practice of law with a warning that similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely. [10] In its 5 June 2008 Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of Commissioner Concepcion and, in its 26 June 2011 Resolution, denied Atty. Enriquezs motion for reconsideration. On 10 October 2011, Atty. Enriquez filed with the Court a petition [11] for review dated 19 August 2011 challenging the IBP Board of Governors 5 June 2008 and 26 June 2011 Resolutions. In his 19 August 2011 petition, Atty. Enriquez raised as issues: ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS That the Honorable Investigating IBP Commissioner CONCEPCION grossly erred when he ruled and [sic] pursuant to the JOINT-COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT that the Complaint in Civil Case No. 390, stating the HRS. OF AUREA BRIONES and CIRIACO VENTOLERO are the lawful owners in fee simple of LOT 2920, though registered in the name of JOSEPHINE L. VERAR under ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-19723, is a TRUSTEE for all the other co-heirs/co-owners x x x; That the Honorable IBP Commissioner CONCEPCION patently erred when he ruled To claim a right thereunder FALSE DECLARATION is entirely actionable. x x x; That [sic] the Honorable IBP Commissioner CONCEPCION patently erred when he ruled that Petitioner did not attach the other pages of the said TCT in [sic] the Complaint which could have attested to the fact of purchase by the Complainants of a portion of LOT 2920 x x x[;] That the Honorable IBP Investigating Commissioner CONCEPCION patently erred and without factual and legal basis [sic] when he unilaterally concluded that the allegations in the Complaint (CIVIL CASE NO. 390) were false and that Petitioner knew them to be so. In other words the Respondent (Petitioners [sic]) MUST HAVE BEEN MOVED BY MALICE or BAD FAITH. x x x[;] That IBP Investigating Commissioner CONCEPCION grossly erred and falsely concluded that Respondent (Petitioner) knowingly made untruthful statement in his Complaint. [12] The Spouses Williams filed an opposition [13] to Atty. Enriquezs petition for review. They prayed that the petition be denied for being filed out of time. The Issue The main issue is whether Atty. Enriquez is guilty of dishonesty warranting his suspension from the practice of law. The Courts Ruling The Court sets aside the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The IBP Board of Governors 5 June 2008 and 26 June 2011 Resolutions did not become final. Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors are only recommendatory and always subject to the Courts review. In Ylaya v. Gacott, [14] the Court held that: We remind all parties that resolutions from the IBP Board of Governors are merely recommendatory and do not attain finality without a final action from this Court. Section 12, Rule 139-B is clear on this point that: Section 12. R