A.M. No. P-08-2458 - Plopinio vs. Zabala-Carino

On 20 January 2007, Complainant Crisostomo M. Plopinio filed a letter charging Atty. Liza D. Zabala-CariAo, Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 29, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, with both criminal and administrative offenses.
The charges invoked violations of Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 due to her alleged non-disclosure of pending cases before the Ombudsman in her application for the position.
Specific administrative and criminal complaints were initiated, which were docketed with the Ombudsman under designated series (OMB-L-A-06-0072-A, OMB-L-C-06-0110-A, OMB-L-C-02-98-C, and OMB-L-A-06-0212-C).

On 8 May 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed respondent Atty. CariAo to submit her comment regarding the complaint.
On 24 May 2007, respondent Atty. CariAo filed her Comment vehemently denying the allegations, stressing that her answer “No” to item number 37(a) (“Have you ever been formally charged?”) on her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) was truthful.
She argued that the pending Ombudsman cases were still in the preliminary investigation or pre-charge stages, and thus should not be counted as formal charges.

Following the initial comment, an administrative resolution re-docketed the complaint as a regular matter and referred it for investigation by the Executive Judge of RTC, Libmanan, with a 60-day deadline.
On 4 February 2009, an additional allegation arose when a letter from the complainant mentioned that Judge-designate Lore V. Bagalacsa was Atty. CariAo’s godmother at her wedding, and raised concerns regarding possible bias in a previous case.
This new matter was directed to Executive Judge Jaime E. Contreras of RTC, Naga City for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Investigating Judge Contreras found that respondent Atty. CariAo failed to comprehend the full import of the query “Have you ever been formally charged?” and was therefore liable for a disciplinary violation.
Despite finding no deliberate intent to conceal information regarding her pending cases, the Investigating Judge recommended that she be admonished with a stern warning for future similar acts, suggesting a modification of the wording in the PDS.
The OCA adopted the investigation’s findings but recommended a suspension of one (1) month without pay, along with a warning of harsher sanctions should a similar offense occur.
The issue centered on whether the non-disclosure stemmed merely from a misconstruction of the term “formally charged” or if it equated to dishonesty and falsification of her PDS as a lawyer.

The controversy involved the interpretation of “formally charged” as stated in the PDS, with respondent Atty. CariAo maintaining that her answer was based on the definitions provided in the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
The attachment to the complaint and related orders indicated that at the time of her application, the Ombudsman cases had not reached the stage of being “formally charged” as defined by procedural rules and administrative guidelines.
The legal discussion further referenced provisions from the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service detailing the criteria for a formal charge.

Did respondent Atty. CariAo’s answer “No” to the question “Have you ever been formally charged?” on her Personal Data Sheet constitute a falsification or act of dishonesty?

Whether her interpretation of “formally charged” based on pending versus formally instituted cases upheld her answer.
Determining if a misunderstanding of administrative terms could amount to intentional deception on the part of a lawyer.

Can pending complaints and preliminary investigations be equated with a formal charge under the applicable administrative and criminal rules?

Examination of the definitions under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Comparison with the procedural requirements as set forth in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the filing of an information with official approval.

Should respondent Atty. CariAo be held liable for dishonesty given the context of her long government service and the expected familiarity with the terms used in her Personal Data Sheet?

The issue of whether her conduct demonstrated a disposition to lie, cheat, or deceive by failing to disclose pending cases.
The broader impact of such findings for administrative discipline and the subsequent imposition of sanctions.