Case Digest (A.C. No. 6517)
Facts:
Marcos v. Prieto, A.C. No. 6517, December 06, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Atty. Marcos V. Prieto filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ferdinand A. Fe (in his capacities as a member of the bar and as a judge) and respondent Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz (as a member of the bar), charging dishonesty and serious misconduct prejudicial to the integrity and dignity of the Judiciary under Section 27, Rule 138 and Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, in relation to their participation in Civil Case No. 1081‑BG (Yolanda M. Roque v. Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, et al.) and Civil Case No. 1518‑BG (Yolanda Marquez Roque v. Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, et al.).The complainant alleged that respondent Judge Fe, while previously acting as counsel for Roque in Civil Case No. 1081‑BG, had given respondent Atty. Corpuz free access to the case records and allowed him to copy portions of the complaint drafted in 1081‑BG; that Civil Case No. 1518‑BG was subsequently raffled to Judge Fe although he was the former counsel of the plaintiff therein; and that paragraphs in the complaint filed in 1518‑BG were copied from 1081‑BG (which Judge Fe had drafted). Prieto contended these acts evidenced malice or wrongful intent and that Corpuz’s signing of a complaint not written by him constituted deceit warranting disbarment. He further charged that Judge Fe’s supposed failure to inhibit himself evidenced misconduct contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility and judicial ethics.
By Resolution dated 28 September 2005, the Second Division of the Court referred the administrative complaint to Court of Appeals Justice Josefina G. Salonga for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Salonga conducted a hearing on 13 December 2005, during which the parties offered documentary evidence and then rested; memoranda were filed (complainant: 13 December 2005; Judge Fe: 18 January 2006; Atty. Corpuz: 20 January 2006). Justice Salonga’s investigative report summarized the underlying civil litigation: Roque’s mother mortgaged parcels later foreclosed and sold to Prieto; Roque filed Civil Case No. 1081‑BG (drafted by then‑lawyer Fe) which was dismissed in 2000 for lack of ripeness; Fe was appointed RTC Judge of Branch 67 on 8 November 2001 and relinquished his client files to Roque; following the mother’s death, Roque refiled as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1518‑BG on 5 January 2004 with Atty. Corpuz as counsel; the case was raffled to Judge Fe on 7 January 2004, whereupon Judge Fe issued an order of inhibition dated 23 January 2004 and caused the record to be transmitted to RTC Branch 33 on 27 January 2004; thereafter proceedings continued before Branch 33.
Justice Salonga recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Fe and Atty. Corpuz and suggested admonishment of the complainant for filing a frivolous complaint. The Supreme Court rev...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Ferdinand A. Fe and Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz commit dishonesty or serious misconduct warranting administrative discipline?
- Did Atty. Marcos V. Prieto file a frivolous or malicious administrative complaint such that he should...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)