Facts:

This case involves a disbarment complaint filed by Francis C. Arsenio (the complainant) against Atty. Johan A. Tabuzo (the respondent) on June 18, 2010. The events leading to this complaint began with an administrative case that Arsenio filed against JS Contractor, a recruitment agency, before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). During a hearing on May 10, 2000, Atty. Tabuzo, who was the Overseas Employment Adjudicator assigned to the case, requested Arsenio to sign three blank sheets of paper. When Arsenio later inquired about this unusual request, Atty. Tabuzo reacted angrily, using offensive language and suggesting that Arsenio would understand the implications of his actions when the opposing party presented their case. Following this encounter, Arsenio sought advice from Senator Rene Cayetano, who recommended that he clarify the situation with Atty. Tabuzo. However, when Arsenio approached Atty. Tabuzo again, he was met with further hostility and th...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Francis C. Arsenio filed a Complaint-Affidavit on June 18, 2010 seeking the disbarment of Atty. Johan A. Tabuzo for conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
• The complaint arose from an earlier administrative case initiated by Arsenio against JS Contractor before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Incident at the POEA Hearing

• During a scheduled hearing on May 10, 2000, Atty. Tabuzo, acting as the Overseas Employment Adjudicator, instructed Arsenio to sign three blank sheets of paper.
• When Arsenio inquired about the purpose of the blank documents a week later, Tabuzo replied with offensive language, stating: "Bwiset! Napakakulit mo, doon mo malaman mamaya pagdating ng kalaban mo!"
• In a subsequent encounter, when Arsenio attempted to clarify the matter, Tabuzo again shouted offensive remarks including:
• "Bwiset! Goddamit! Alam mo ba na maraming abogado dito sa POEA na nagbebenta ng kaso?"
• Threatening further action by stating he might “sampal” (slap) the faces of certain individuals and insisting on the use of an alternate name, "Atty. Romeo Tabuzo", with a warning to return the next day.

Follow-up Administrative and Criminal Proceedings

• Arsenio discovered that his case against JS Contractor had been dismissed, which led him to file a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
• On February 1, 2002, Graft Investigation Officer II Wilfred Pascasio issued a Resolution finding probable cause against “Atty. Romeo Tabuzo” and ordered the filing of an Information.
• Atty. Tabuzo submitted a Motion for Reconsideration alleging:
• That no record of an “Atty. Romeo Tabuso” existed in POEA.
• That he was never served a copy of the summons.
• His motion, purportedly an initiative to clear his name, was ultimately denied on July 16, 2002.
• In a parallel criminal proceeding, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 213 of Mandaluyong City, acquitted Atty. Tabuzo on December 6, 2011, for violation of RA No. 3019.

IBP Disciplinary Proceedings

• On November 24, 2010, the Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) docketed the matter as CBD Case No. 11-2912 titled "Francis C. Arsenio v. Atty. Johan Tabuzo."
• Atty. Tabuzo filed an Omnibus Comment with a Motion to Dismiss, in which he:
• Denied the allegations as baseless.
• Presented affidavits from two Overseas Employment Adjudicators attesting that no such incident occurred.
• Claimed a violation of his due process rights as he was not notified by the Office of the Ombudsman.
• The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Eldrid Antiquierra, recommended a reprimand based on:
• Arsenio’s sworn Complaint-Affidavit.
• The Resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman.
• On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors approved with modifications the recommendation, finding that Atty. Tabuzo violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to a three-month suspension.
• Atty. Tabuzo subsequently appealed through a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied.

Issue:

Sufficiency of the Disbarment Complaint

• Whether the Complaint-Affidavit and supporting evidence presented by Arsenio constitute a sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Tabuzo.
• If the evidence satisfies the substantial evidence threshold required in disciplinary proceedings.

Evidentiary Discrepancies

• The impact of the inconsistency in the nomenclature—specifically, the conflict between “Atty. Johan Tabuzo” and “Atty. Romeo Tabuso” as used in the administrative proceedings.
• Whether the reliance on an unchallenged complaint (due to Atty. Tabuzo’s failure to file an answer) undermines the probative value of the evidence.

Due Process Concerns

• The allegation by Atty. Tabuzo that his constitutional right to due process was violated because he was not personally notified by the Office of the Ombudsman.
• The overall procedural propriety in conducting the disciplinary investigation and subsequent actions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)