Case Digest (A.C. No. 8210)
Facts:
Spouses Manolo and Milinia Nuezca v. Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia, A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Complainants Spouses Manolo and Milinia Nuezca filed a verified complaint with the Court seeking respondent Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia's disbarment for grave misconduct, alleging that a demand letter dated February 15, 2009, which respondent sent and copy‑furnished to various persons and offices, contained threatening, libelous and otherwise abusive statements and attached news clippings intended to besmirch their reputation and cause them emotional distress.
The Supreme Court initially directed respondent to file a comment, but service problems arose because the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had respondent's address on record and the complainants failed to furnish a correct address. Consequently, the Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation and set mandatory conferences/hearings before the IBP‑Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
Despite notices, complainants failed to appear at the scheduled mandatory hearings. Notices sent to respondent were returned unserved with notations "RTS Moved Out" and "RTS Unknown." The IBP ordered the parties to file verified position papers and exhibits. Respondent did not file a comment nor appear before the IBP, and the allegations therefore remained uncontroverted.
The IBP‑CBD, in a Report and Recommendation dated May 29, 2015, found respondent liable for violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended suspension for three (3) months and a P1,000 fine for contempt for defying IBP lawful orders. The IBP Board of Governors, in a Resolution dated June 20, 2015, adopted the recommendation...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s failure to answer the complaint and to appear at the IBP investigation constitute contempt or otherwise warrant disciplinary aggravation?
- Did respondent violate Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by the language used in the February 15, 2009 demand letter, and w...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)