Title
Dela Fuente Torres vs. Dalangin
Case
A.C. No. 10758, 10759, 10760, 10761
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2017
Atty. Dalangin faced multiple administrative complaints alleging gross immorality, misconduct, and malpractice. The Supreme Court admonished him for imprudent behavior, fined him for court misconduct, and dismissed counter-complaints against other lawyers due to insufficient evidence.
administrative complaints
gross immorality
insufficient evidence
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10758, 10759, 10760, 10761)

Factual Background

The consolidated administrative matters arose from multiple complaints and counter-complaints among lawyers and clients in Nueva Ecija that alleged, inter alia, gross immorality, gross misconduct, malpractice, dishonesty, and violations of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. Central to the complaints against Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin were allegations that he maintained an illicit affair with Julita Pascual, fathered a child named Julienne, filed groundless suits to cover alleged negligence, prepared affidavits containing perjured statements, misquoted jurisprudence, misused evidence in court, demanded fees while a public attorney, and engaged in a public confrontation with Glenda Alvaro in a courtroom lobby.

Complaints and Allegations against Atty. Dalangin (A.C. No. 10758)

In CBD Case No. 11-3215 the complainants charged Atty. Dalangin with gross immorality for the alleged extramarital relationship with Pascual and paternity of Julienne, with gross misconduct and malpractice for filing allegedly groundless suits and preparing perjured affidavits, for demanding attorney's fees while serving at the PAO, for appearing beyond his jurisdiction without authority, for submitting misleading evidence, and for misquoting jurisprudence in pleadings. The complaints invoked multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Rule 7.03, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02.

Complaint by Glenda Alvaro (A.C. No. 10759)

In CBD Case No. 12-3292 Glenda Alvaro alleged that on November 14, 2011 Atty. Dalangin publicly hurled defamatory epithets at her, threatened her for participating in CBD Case No. 11-3215, and barred her from visiting the PAO in Talavera. The complaint charged violations of Canon 1 (Rules 1.01 and 1.02), Canon 7 (Rule 7.03), and Canon 8 (Rule 8.02) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complaints Filed by Atty. Dalangin (A.C. Nos. 10760 and 10761)

In CBD Case No. 12-3369 and CBD Case No. 12-3458 Atty. Dalangin sought the disbarment of Atty. Rosita L. Dela Fuente-Torres and Atty. Avelino Andres, alleging gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath for conspiring with clients to file CBD Case No. 11-3215 and for using a transcript of a recorded telephone conversation in violation of R.A. No. 4200. He likewise alleged that affidavits supporting the earlier complaint contained perjury and falsehoods.

Responses of the Respondents

Atty. Dalangin denied the allegations in his answers, asserting lack of authorship or signature in the disbarment affidavits, explaining his relationship with Pascual as friendship and godparenthood to her children, denying collection of fees as a PAO lawyer, and claiming verbal authorization for out-of-area appearances. Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres denied wrongdoing, argued that the recorded conversation did not constitute wiretapping under R.A. No. 4200, and maintained that the transcript was relevant to show fabrication by Atty. Dalangin of affidavits.

IBP Investigation and Report

The IBP Investigating Commissioner conducted hearings and received position papers and affidavits, then issued a Consolidated Report and Recommendation dated February 11, 2013 finding sufficient bases to suspend Atty. Dalangin from the practice of law for three years for gross immorality and gross misconduct, and recommending dismissal of Atty. Dalangin's complaints against Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres for lack of merit.

IBP Board of Governors Resolutions and Transmission

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation in Resolution No. XX-2013-768 dated June 21, 2013 and affirmed it on August 8, 2014 denying Atty. Dalangin's motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to Rule 139-B, Rules of Court, the IBP transmitted the records to the Supreme Court for final action, whereupon Atty. Dalangin filed a petition for review and the Court consolidated the matters and required comments.

Procedural Issue on Early Petition for Review

The Court addressed the procedural propriety of Atty. Dalangin's early petition for review of the IBP resolutions, noting the pre-amendment text of Section 12 of Rule 139-B then in force and the Court's prior guidance that the IBP's factual findings and penalties are recommendatory and that only the Supreme Court may impose suspension or disbarment. The Court declined to deny the petition for lack of course because it found review appropriate and because the petition also challenged the IBP's dismissal of complaints filed by Atty. Dalangin.

Standard of Proof and Applicable Doctrine

The Court reiterated that administrative proceedings against lawyers require proof by substantial evidence, defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, and observed precedents such as Saladaga v. Astorga, Advincula v. Macabata, and Cabas v. Sususco. The Court also recalled that the burden of proof rests with the complainant and that mere allegation, suspicion, or speculation cannot suffice.

Analysis of Gross Immorality Charge (A.C. No. 10758)

The IBP relied on affidavits and photographs and on the alleged refusal of Atty. Dalangin to submit to DNA testing to find an illicit relationship with Pascual and paternity of Julienne. The Court reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to establish the alleged extramarital affair and paternity by substantial evidence. The Court noted that public documents such as Julienne's birth and baptismal certificates listed Pascual's husband as father and that the photographs did not disclose romantic conduct. The Court observed that while Atty. Dalangin displayed imprudent closeness to Pascual and her children and that his conduct may have given rise to public suspicion, such conduct did not meet the quantum of proof required to impose suspension or disbarment. The Court concluded that an admonition, with a stern warning, was the appropriate sanction for the conduct found.

Analysis of Gross Misconduct and Malpractice Allegations

The Court considered allegations that Atty. Dalangin fabricated affidavits, demanded fees as a former public attorney, appeared beyond jurisdiction without authority, misquoted jurisprudence, and submitted misleading evidence. The Court found that the evidence did not support suspension. The Court observed that the complainants failed to show fraud or falsity beyond conjecture in the joint affidavit used against Atty. Torres, that the lone affidavit alleging an eight-thousand peso demand dated nine years after the fact was insufficient, and that Atty. Dalangin asserted verbal authorization from a superior for out-of-area appearances which was not rebutted. The Court did find error in the misquotation of jurisprudence and stressed the duty under Canon 10, Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to misquote authorities, but ruled that admonition was adequate as there was no showing of an intention to mislead the court.

Ruling on the Alvaro Confrontation (A.C. No. 10759)

On the November 14, 2011 incident the Court found credible affidavits from disinterested witnesses, including security guards and a bystander, that Atty. Dalangin shouted at and threatened Glenda Alvaro within court premises. The Court held that such conduct violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7, of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribes conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice and scandalous behavior in public or private life. Considering mitigating factors, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 and a stern warning that further misconduct would be more severely sanctioned.

Dismissal of Complaints Filed by Atty. Dalangin (A.C. Nos. 10760 and 10761)

The Court affirmed the IBP's dismissal of Atty. Dalangin's complaints against Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres. The Court found that Atty. Dalangin failed to prove that the transcript of a telephone conversation constituted a violation of R.A. No. 4200, noting that the alleged victim denied the truth of the transcription and that no wire or cable tapping was shown. The Court likewise found insufficient evidence that Atty. Torres induced perjury by Marzan and Valdez and declined to ascribe culpability to counsel absent clear and convincing proof of active participation in fabricated statements.

Final Disposition

The Supreme Court en banc admonished Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin to be more prudent in his personal and professional conduct and imposed a stern warning in A.C. No. 10758; fined him P5,000.00 with a ste

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms