Case Digest (G.R. No. 209284)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 209284)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Daniel B. Liangco, A.C. No. 5355, December 13, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The present disbarment case grew out of facts in an earlier administrative matter, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136. Complainant Hermogenes T. Gozun occupied and lived on a parcel of land for over thirty years. The Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis, Pampanga adopted Resolutions No. 26-96 (later amended by Res. No. 34-96) asserting municipal ownership of the lot and designating it as the site for a rural health center. On May 24, 1996, Romulo M. Batu, then Vice Mayor, filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Luis, a petition for declaratory relief addressed to Judge Daniel B. Liangco. That same day Judge Liangco issued a resolution—docketed and captioned like a court disposition—ruling in favor of the municipal position, despite no notice to or hearing for Gozun.
Pursuant to the judge’s resolution the municipal mayor issued Executive Order No. 1 (May 24, 1996), and on August 8, 1996 municipal agents demolished Gozun’s house. Gozun filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on December 18, 1996, charging Judge Liangco with gross misconduct and incompetence; the OCA investigated and, in A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136, the Court En Banc on August 30, 2000 dismissed Judge Liangco from the service, forfeited retirement benefits and directed the OCA to initiate disbarment proceedings.
Pursuant to that direction, the OCA filed on November 10, 2000 an administrative Complaint for Disbarment (docketed A.C. No. 5355) alleging manifest bias, partiality and inexcusable ignorance of well-established rules of procedure. Respondent filed a comment asserting he honestly rendered a legal opinion in good faith and pleaded for compassion. The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (investigating commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala) conducted hearings and on October 3, 2003 recommended disbarment, citing clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, respondent’s lapses, prior suspension (assignment of cases without raffle), and pending administrative complaints including an entrapment-related bribery charge.
On October 9, 2008 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commission’s report via Resolution No. XVIII-2008-525 and recommended disbarment; respondent filed motions for reconsideration with the IBP and later an undocketed Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court. The IBP transmitted the records to the Supreme Court on June 30, 2011, received by the Court on August 16, 2011. The Court En Banc, in the present decision, affirmed the IBP findings and ordered respondent disbarred.
Issues:
- Is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court available to assail an IBP Board of Governors resolution recommending disbarment?
- Do the complainant’s alleged motives or an affidavit of desistance (and the respondent’s prior dismissal from the bench) bar disbarment proceedings?
- Was respondent Atty. Daniel B. Liangco guilty of gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance of the law such that he should be disbarred?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)