A.C. No. 13035 - Francisco vs. Suaega-Lagman

Atty. Pablo B. Francisco filed a criminal complaint for perjury against officers of Brookside Residents Association, Inc. (BRAI), alleging that they made willful false statements in a notarized Conference Brief related to a Compromise Agreement executed on 3 March 2009 with Brookside Hills developer, St. Louis Realty Corporation (SLRC).
The officers allegedly stipulated in the Conference Brief that they were not officers of BRAI at the time of the Compromise Agreement, which Atty. Francisco contested, pointing out they had signed the agreement.
The criminal complaint for perjury was assigned to Atty. Ma. Victoria SuAega-Lagman, DOJ investigating prosecutor, who dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, ruling that the false statement was a mere proposal for stipulation, which the complainant was free to accept or reject.

Aggrieved, Atty. Francisco filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. SuAega-Lagman, alleging violation of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct due to the dismissal of his criminal complaint.
He argued that the dismissal was based on whim, caprice, and despotism and that the failure to find probable cause was a gross ignorance of the law and negligence in the prosecutor's duty to see that justice is done.

The Supreme Court received the complaint and applied the recently adopted guidelines from Guevarra-Castil v. Trinidad regarding jurisdiction over complaints against government lawyers.
The new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) promulgated on 11 April 2023 replaced the CPR and included provisions on complaints against government lawyers consistent with Guevarra-Castil guidelines.
GPRA provisions state that verified complaints against government lawyers that seek to discipline them as members of the Bar must be filed with the Supreme Court.
The DOJ Code of Conduct for Prosecutors requires prosecutors to prepare well-reasoned resolutions, applying laws and jurisprudence to facts and dismiss charges only when impartial investigation shows they are unfounded.

Whether Atty. SuAega-Lagman violated Canon 6 of the CPR and committed grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in dismissing Atty. Francisco's criminal complaint for perjury.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against a government lawyer in relation to the performance of official duties.
Whether dismissal of the perjury complaint on the ground that the statements were mere proposals for stipulation constitutes gross ignorance of the law or bad faith.