Case Summary (A.M. No. 2017-07-SC, A.C. No. 12323)
Allegations Against the Respondent
Judge Cobarrubias-Nabaza accused Atty. Lavandero of violating multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Complainant alleged that Lavandero, as a co-plaintiff in a case under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, unlawfully took a Hyundai Accent vehicle that had been placed under custodia legis without court approval. Surveillance footage indicated that he had taken the vehicle in and out of the court premises on three occasions. Following these incidents, the complaint was submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator which referred it for investigation, leading to the administrative case numbered A.M. No. 2017-07-SC.
Respondent's Defense
In his defense, Lavandero asserted he had legitimate authority over the vehicle, claiming it was successfully auctioned on August 19, 2016, where he was the highest bidder. He contended that any missteps regarding the auction process should be attributed to the negligence of the sheriff involved.
Findings of the Office of Administrative Services
After conducting due investigations, the Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court (OAS-SC) issued a report recommending that Lavandero be found guilty of misconduct for taking the vehicle without judicial approval. They proposed a fine of P10,000.00 and warned that any future misconduct would invoke stricter penalties. The investigation uncovered irregularities, including a lack of documentation substantiating the auction and procedural violations pertaining to the proper handling of properties under custodia legis.
Progression of Administrative Proceedings
Subsequent developments included the separation of the case against Lavandero as an administrative matter in A.C. No. 12323. Both parties submitted position papers reiterating their previous claims. Notably, Lavandero resigned from his position on November 17, 2019, during the pendency of the case.
Office of the Bar Confidant’s Recommendations
In a report dated March 1, 2021, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) found Lavandero administratively liable as a member of the Bar and recommended a suspension of one year for his violations of the CPR. The OBC emphasized that Lavandero's conduct represented a serious breach of ethical standards expected from legal professionals.
Judicial Rationale on Administrative Liability
The Court affirmed the earlier findings, stating that resignation does not render administrative proceedings moot. It reaffirmed its jurisdiction over Lavandero's actions while he was still employed, emphasizing that irregularities in the auction and the unauthorized removal of the vehicle warranted sanctions. While his actions could be construed as misconduct, the Court aligned them more closely with "Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service", as they did not directly pertain to his judicial duties.
Considerations for Imposed Penalties
In determining applicable penalties, the Court noted the procedural frameworks in existence at the time of Lavandero’s infractions. As the viola
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 2017-07-SC, A.C. No. 12323)
Complainant and Respondent
- Complainant: Presiding Judge Suzanne D. Cobarrubias-Nabaza, Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 93, Marikina City.
- Respondent: Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, Court Attorney IV, Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator.
Background of the Case
- Complainant filed a letter dated October 12, 2016, accusing the respondent of violating multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- The case was docketed as an administrative proceeding against the respondent as a judiciary employee (A.M. No. 2017-07-SC) and subsequently as an administrative disciplinary case against him as a member of the Bar (A.C. No. 12323).
Facts of the Case
- Respondent was a co-plaintiff in a case under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) pending before the complainant.
- After a favorable ruling for the respondent, properties of the defendant, including a Black Hyundai Accent (the subject vehicle), were placed under custodia legis for levy, execution, and auction sale.
- Complainant discovered that respondent had taken the subject vehicle in and out of court premises three times without prior knowledge or approval, as evidenced by CCTV footage.
- In defense, respondent claimed that he was the highest bidder during a public auction on August 19, 2016, and accused the sheriff of negligence.
Investigative Proceedings
- The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to the Office of Administrative Services (OAS-SC) for a formal investigation.
- The OAS-SC issued a Memorandum on July 20, 2018, recommending that the respondent be found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing a fine of P10,000.00, with a warning against future similar acts.
- The investigation found irregularities in the auction process, including non-compliance with procedures, unauthorized removal of the vehicle, and lack of documentary evidence for t