Case Digest (A.C. No. 7045)
Facts:
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche represented by its founding partner, Atty. Francisco I. Chavez v. Attys. Restituto S. Lazaro and Rodel R. Morta, A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Complainant, the Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche through Atty. Francisco M. Chavez, filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Court on 8 February 2006 seeking the disbarment of respondents Attys. Restituto S. Lazaro and Rodel R. Morta for alleged violations of Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge arose from pleadings in Criminal Case No. Q‑05‑136678, a libel prosecution against Eliseo F. Soriano pending before Branch 218, RTC Quezon City, in which complainant represented Soriano and respondents represented private complainant Michael M. Sandoval.
The factual sequence began with the filing of a Petition for Review with the DOJ on 10 October 2005 challenging the City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. On 11 October 2005 Atty. Chavez appeared before the RTC to seek suspension of Soriano’s arraignment, presenting an extra copy of the DOJ petition stamped received and explaining the original was filed personally by a messenger. He moved to suspend arraignment under Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, but the RTC proceeded with arraignment and, believing bias, counsel later filed a Motion for Inhibition.
On 11 November 2005 respondents filed an opposition to the Motion for Inhibition (the “Vehement Opposition”) in which they stated, inter alia, that they concluded the accused “was able to antedate the filing or mailing of the petition.” Respondents reiterated the antedating allegation in a Comment dated 6 December 2006. Complainant denied the allegation and attached the DOJ‑stamped petition as proof of timely filing.
Respondents answered the disbarment case alleging harassment, faulting complainant for not impleading Public Prosecutor Nadine Jaban‑Fama (who had signed the opposition), and invoking privileged communication and the presumption of regularity. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation (7 August 2006). The IBP investigating commissioner recommended a reprimand (Report and Recommendation dated 7 July 2008), and the IBP Board of Governors initially adopted that recommendation (Resolution No. XVIII‑2008‑391, 14 August 2008).
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration (14 November 2008) arguing, primarily, that the Complaint should have been dismissed for failure to implead the public prosecutor as an indispensable party; they also renewed claims of privileged communication and good‑faith reliance on the prosecutor’s concurrence. On 22 March 2014 the IBP Board of Governors granted reconsideration and dismissed the complaint (Resolution...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the IBP Board of Governors correct in dismissing the disciplinary complaint on the ground that the public prosecutor was an indispensable party whose non‑joinder warranted dismissal?
- Can the presumption of regularity attaching to the public prosecutor’s acts and the prosecutor’s concurrence in the challenged pleadings shield respondents from disciplinary liability?
- Did respondents’ pleadings accusing complainant of antedating the DOJ petition constitute a violation of Canon 8 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Resp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)