A.C. No. 9850 - Guanzon vs. Dojillo

Atty. Ma. Rowena Amelia Guanzon, while acting as counsel for Rosalie Jaype-Garcia and her minor children in a Petition for Temporary Protection Order (TPO) under R.A. No. 9262 against Jesus Chua Garcia, obtained a favorable ruling from the RTC, Branch 41 in Bacolod City.
Subsequently, Jesus Chua Garcia, through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Guanzon alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. The complaint cited issues on confidentiality of documents and proceedings, gross misconduct, discourtesy, unfairness, and unethical behavior.

Garcia’s disbarment complaint (CBD Case No. 06-1710 and Administrative Case No. 7176) relied on affidavits from Sheryl Jamola (former “yaya” of Garcia’s child) and Bernadette Yap alleging that Atty. Guanzon had a “romantic and pecuniary interest” in Rosalie and the financial support ordered by the court.
Later, Atty. Guanzon pursued several legal actions against Garcia by filing:

A case for Damages (Civil Case No. 802-C) before RTC, Branch 60, Cadiz City on June 13, 2006.
A case for Unjust Vexation (Criminal Case No. 06-10-12695) before the MTCC, Branch 6, Bacolod City on September 27, 2006.
A case for Grave Oral Defamation (Criminal Case No. 06-10-12696) before the MTCC, Branch 5, Bacolod City on October 12, 2006.

Serving as counsel for Garcia, Atty. Joel G. Dojillo attached the affidavits from the disbarment records (the “subject documents”) in Garcia’s Answer and Counter-Affidavits to the above cases.
Atty. Guanzon contended that Atty. Dojillo, with malice and bad faith, should have refrained from disseminating these confidential disbarment records, which in turn damaged her good reputation by exposing confidential details of the disbarment proceedings.

In his Answer dated October 26, 2007, Atty. Dojillo explained that he attached the subject documents to establish Atty. Guanzon’s underlying motive, arguing that her filing of multiple cases was an act of revenge for the disbarment complaint she had faced from Garcia.
He further contended that since Atty. Guanzon herself had attached the same documents in a separate Complaint for Contempt (Civil Case No. 824-C), his actions were justified as necessary for the defense of his client.

The IBP-CBD, after investigating the matter, recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Dojillo due to insufficiency of evidence to establish any breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the confidentiality rule.
The IBP-CBD also opined that Atty. Guanzon’s successive filings might have been intended to harass Garcia and recommended that she be censured for initiating baseless suits.
In Resolution No. XVIII-2008-645 dated December 11, 2008, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted the recommendations, dismissing the complaint against Atty. Dojillo and warning Atty. Guanzon against filing groundless complaints.
Atty. Guanzon’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the IBP-Board of Governors reaffirmed its earlier resolution in Resolution No. XX-2013-12 dated January 3, 2013.

On April 10, 2013, Atty. Guanzon filed the instant petition for review challenging the IBP’s decision, thereby seeking to overturn the dismissal of her disbarment complaint against Atty. Dojillo.

Whether Atty. Dojillo violated the confidentiality rule by attaching the subject disbarment documents in Garcia’s Answer and Counter-Affidavits.

Did the attachment of these documents constitute a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court regarding confidentiality in disbarment proceedings?
Was there any malice or bad faith in the act of attaching said documents, or was it a necessary step in defending his client?

Whether the evidentiary basis provided by Atty. Guanzon was sufficient to sustain the allegations against Atty. Dojillo.

Does reliance on alleged “romantic and pecuniary interest” and the subsequent filing of multiple cases by Atty. Guanzon amount to clear and convincing evidence of misconduct?
Is the burden of proof met in disbarment proceedings, considering the serious consequences of such sanctions?