A.C. No. 7253., A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7253., A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717)

Petition for Disbarment and Complaint for Nullification of Appointment

In 2006, Atty. Nava II filed a Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Artuz (A.C. No. 7253) for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and engaging in grave misconduct, including malicious maligning, insulting, and scorning him and his father in official pleadings. He also alleged that she falsely imputed crimes against him and maliciously filed criminal cases to harass him and others. Amid these proceedings, Artuz was appointed as a Judge in October 2006 despite opposition from Atty. Nava II, who then filed a separate complaint-petition (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717) seeking to nullify her appointment on grounds of unfitness due to pending criminal and administrative cases she failed to disclose in her Personal Data Sheets (PDS).

Court’s Initial Administrative Findings and Penalties

Following due investigation and consolidation of cases, the Supreme Court issued a Decision on August 29, 2017, finding Atty. Artuz guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification related to her omission of pending cases in her PDS. Consequently, she was dismissed from judicial service immediately with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government. The Court also required her to show cause why she should not be disbarred for the same acts and ordered the filing of comments on Atty. Nava II’s disbarment complaint.

Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and Submission

Atty. Artuz moved for reconsideration, denying allegations in the disbarment petition and attributing the false statements in her PDS to an error in judgment, reasoning that a clearance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) led her to believe no formal charges existed. She also filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration, which was noted without action. Eventually, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality in January 2018, and the disbarment petition was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation.

Office of the Bar Confidant’s Report and Recommendation

The OBC recommended disbarment based on respondent’s proven guilty acts of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification, which violated multiple canons of the CPR, as well as Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The OBC emphasized that respondent failed to adequately justify or show cause why she should not be suspended or disbarred and instead focused on attacking the complainant’s integrity.

Respondent’s Further Arguments on Due Process

Respondent filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration arguing that there was no evidence she had knowledge of the cases filed against her, nor that she was given notice or opportunities to comment, alleging denial of due process. These motions were noted but not acted upon because of the previous denial of reconsideration.

Legal Issues Presented

The core issue was whether respondent Atty. Artuz should be disbarred based on her conduct as Prosecutor and Judge, specifically relating to grave misconduct, dishonesty, falsification in PDS, and violation of professional ethical standards.

Court’s Legal Analysis on A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717

The Court reiterated that respondent was already found guilty of administrative offenses involving grave misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification for deliberately omitting pending cases in her PDS to appear qualified for judicial appointment. Under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, such administrative cases against judges also constitute disciplinary proceedings as members of the Bar, warranting possible disbarment.

Respondent’s deliberate falsehood in official documents breaches Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (prohibition of dishonest acts), Canon 7 (upholding integrity and dignity), Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 (candor and good faith to the court), and Canon 11 (respect for courts and judicial officers) of the CPR. These misconducts also violate Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes disbarment for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and willful disobedience of lawful court orders. The Court held that these grounds sufficiently warrant disbarment.

Court’s Legal Analysis on A.C. No. 7253

Regarding the claim that respondent malignantly insulted Atty. Nava II and his father in her official comment during the inhibition petition, the Court found respondent's defense untenable. Lawyers are bound by a duty to maintain courtesy, fairness, and civility as mandated by Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the CPR, which prohibits abusive or offensive language toward professional colleagues. The Court emphasized established jurisprudence that insulting language towards opposing counsel constitutes conduct unbecoming of the legal profession and subject to disciplinary action.

Respondent’s calling of Atty. Nava II and his father “barbaric, nomadic, and outrageou

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 7253., A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717)

Parties and Case Nature

Complainant: Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II filed administrative complaints for disbarment against respondent Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz.
Respondent: Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz, previously a Prosecutor, later appointed as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City.
Two consolidated cases:
- A.C. No. 7253 alleging willful and vicious maligning, insulting, and scorning of complainant and his father.
- A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 involving respondent’s dismissal from the service and subsequent show-cause directive for disbarment.

Factual Background

In 2006, Atty. Nava II filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent for violations of Canon 8, Grave Misconduct, and RA 6713.
Incident arose when Atty. Nava II requested respondent’s inhibition and re-raffle of a case in the City Prosecutor’s Office due to personal animosity.
Respondent allegedly maligned and insulted Atty. Nava II and his non-party father in an official comment.
Atty. Nava II alleged respondent falsely imputed a crime, maliciously filed cases to harass him, and maligned a former superior.
During the pendency of A.C. No. 7253, respondent was appointed as a judge despite opposition from Atty. Nava II.
Atty. Nava II filed another complaint seeking nullification of respondent’s appointment, citing pending criminal and administrative cases affecting her integrity and competence.
Respondent failed to disclose pending cases in her Personal Data Sheets (PDS).

Court Proceedings and Consolidation

The Court directed respondent to show cause regarding non-disclosure of cases.
Due investigation initiated with the two administrative cases consolidated by Resolution dated June 17, 2015.
On August 29, 2017, the Court found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification based on her PDS omissions, and dismissed her from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and barred reemployment.
The Court gave respondent an opportunity to comment on complaint A.C. No. 7253.
Respondent filed motions for reconsideration and comments denying allegations but largely attacking Atty. Nava II’s credibility and attributing omissions in the PDS to error in judgment.
Motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration was noted without action.
Motion for reconsideration was denied with finality; petition for disbarment referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).

Office of the Bar Confidant’s (OBC) Report and Recommendation

OBC recommended disbarment for violations of various canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Rules of Court.
Findings highlighted respondent’s proven gr