Facts:
These consolidated administrative cases, decided by the Supreme Court en banc on December 5, 2017, arose from four complaints prosecuted before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline: CBD Case No. 11-3215 (docketed as
A.C. No. 10758) filed by
Atty. Rosita L. Dela Fuente-Torres, Felicidad O. Samatra,
Glenda Alvaro, Mary D.F. Noveras and Generosa S. Camacho against
Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin for gross immorality, malpractice and gross misconduct; CBD Case No. 12-3292 (docketed as
A.C. No. 10759) filed by
Glenda Alvaro for gross misconduct based on a public confrontation with
Atty. Dalangin on November 14, 2011 at the Regional Trial Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija; CBD Case No. 12-3369 (docketed as
A.C. No. 10760) filed by
Atty. Dalangin seeking the disbarment of
Atty. Dela Fuente-Torres and
Atty. Avelino Andres for alleged violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act and professional rules; and CBD Case No. 12-3458 (docketed as
A.C. No. 10761) filed by
Atty. Dalangin against
Atty. Dela Fuente-Torres for alleged perjury and grave misconduct. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a three-year suspension of
Atty. Dalangin for gross immorality and gross misconduct and recommended dismissal of the complaints against
Atty. Dela Fuente-Torres and
Atty. Andres; the IBP Board of Governors adopted and affirmed that recommendation, and denied reconsideration.
Atty. Dalangin filed petitions for review with the Court challenging the IBP resolutions; the Court consolidated the petitions, required comments, received the parties’ submissions, and proceeded to review both the IBP’s findings and the charges in the complaints.
Issues:
Did
Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin commit gross immorality, malpractice or gross misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law?; Did the IBP correctly dismiss
Atty. Dalangin’s complaints against
Atty. Rosita L. Dela Fuente-Torres and
Atty. Avelino Andres for alleged violations including the Anti-Wiretapping Act and perjury?; Were the disciplinary measures imposed by the Court — admonition in A.C. No. 10758 and a fine in A.C. No. 10759 — appropriate?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: