Case Summary (A.C. No. 12669)
Antecedents
The case originated from a Verified Complaint with Prayer for Immediate Preventive Suspension filed by Atty. Mandagan against Mr. Diaz and the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for alleged violations of anti-graft and ethical standards. Atty. Mandagan asserted that the resolution approved by Mr. Diaz for the construction of a barangay health center encroached on her property without her consent and involved misappropriation of public funds. She accused Mr. Diaz of pocketing public funds intended for the project and giving undue benefits to the contractor, SMT Construction.
Defense of the Respondent
In response, Mr. Diaz contended that the land in question was public property, backed by a certification from the City Assessor. He claimed the project was initiated by the Department of Health (DOH) rather than the city government. Mr. Diaz denied personal involvement in the alleged misconduct, stating Atty. Mandagan should have pursued a civil action regarding her property rights instead of filing a complaint against him.
Ombudsman's Resolution
The Ombudsman dismissed Atty. Mandagan's complaint for lack of merit, asserting that her allegations were not substantiated sufficiently. It found no evidence of conspiracy to misappropriate public funds or of grave abuse of authority by Mr. Diaz and the Sangguniang Panlungsod, suggesting that the matter was more appropriately addressed through civil litigation.
Administrative Case and IBP Findings
Following the dismissal by the Ombudsman, Mr. Diaz initiated an administrative complaint against Atty. Mandagan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Mandagan had indeed violated the CPR by frivolously pursuing accusations against Mr. Diaz without proper evidence and thus recommended her suspension from the practice of law for two years.
IBP Board of Governors' Resolution
Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors upheld the findings and recommendations, issuing a two-year suspension. Atty. Mandagan submitted a Motion for Reconsideration which led to a reduction of the suspension to one year. Dissatisfied, she sought a review of the decision.
Judicial Review and Court's Ruling
The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence in Atty. Mandagan's initial claims against Mr. Diaz. The Court highlighted that she failed to substantiate any wrongdoing, and her complaint not only lacked merit but also represented a misuse of legal processes, bre
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12669)
Case Overview
- The case pertains to a petition for review of a resolution issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors concerning Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan.
- The resolution dated February 16, 2019, partially granted Atty. Mandagan's Motion for Reconsideration, reducing her suspension penalty from two years to one year.
- The administrative case was initiated by former Mayor Josemarie L. Diaz against Atty. Mandagan for filing a meritless complaint against him.
Antecedents of the Case
- Atty. Mandagan filed a Verified Complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman against Mr. Diaz and the Sangguniang Panlungsod for alleged violations of various laws, including Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials).
- The complaint centered around the construction of a barangay health center in Brgy. Alibagu, which Atty. Mandagan claimed encroached upon her property without consent.
- Atty. Mandagan alleged that Mr. Diaz misappropriated public funds and awarded the construction project to SMT Construction improperly.
Mr. Diaz's Defense
- Mr. Diaz countered that the land was public land, part of an old municipal road, and denied direct involvement in the construction.
- He stated the project was an initiative of the Department of Health (DOH) and that evidence would prove the legitimacy of the construction.
Ombudsman’s Resolution
- On June 4, 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed At