Case Summary (A.M. No. P-08-2458)
Allegations and Initial Claims
In a letter dated January 20, 2007, Plopinio charged Atty. CariAo with administrative and criminal violations, specifically under Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, for failing to disclose her pending cases before the Ombudsman. Respondent Atty. CariAo, in her comment dated May 24, 2007, denied these allegations and asserted that she had responded truthfully to her PDS, as the charges against her were still in the preliminary stages and had not yet constituted formal charges.
Court Procedures and Findings
Upon receiving the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) instructed Atty. CariAo to comment on the allegations, which led to the re-docketing of the complaint as a regular administrative matter for investigation. An investigative report was later produced by Judge Jaime E. Contreras, who concluded that while Atty. CariAo failed to properly interpret the significance of the question regarding formal charges, there was no evidence of intentional dishonesty or willful misrepresentation on her part.
Assessment of Dishonesty
The court applied the definition of dishonesty, highlighting that it involves intentionally making false statements or engaging in deception for personal gain. The investigation revealed that Atty. CariAo's misunderstanding stemmed from her reliance on the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, which distinguish between complaints and formal charges. The Investigating Judge found no deliberate intent to withhold information, suggesting that the interpretation of "formally charged" should account for ambiguities in phrasing.
Legal Implications and Definitions
The court clarified that a person is considered formally charged in administrative instances upon a finding of a prima facie case or the issuance of a formal charge. In criminal proceedings, this occurs when an information is filed in court based on the prosecutor's findings of probable cause. The temporal progression of a complaint was emphasized; Atty. CariAo could not have been deemed formally charged as her pending cases were still undergoing preliminary invest
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. P-08-2458)
Case Background
- The case is an administrative complaint initiated by Crisostomo M. Plopinio against Atty. Liza D. Zabala-CariAo, Clerk of Court at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
- The complaint arose from a Letter dated January 20, 2007, where Plopinio alleged that Atty. CariAo failed to disclose pending administrative and criminal cases against her before the Office of the Ombudsman during her application for the Clerk of Court position.
- The referred cases were docketed as OMB-L-A-06-0072-A and OMB-L-C-06-0110-A, with dates of filing on February 10, 2006, and March 22, 2006.
Allegations and Initial Response
- Plopinio asserted that Atty. CariAo's non-disclosure violated Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
- Atty. CariAo responded to the allegations in her Comment dated May 24, 2007, denying any wrongdoing and stating that she answered "No" to the question on her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) regarding whether she had ever been formally charged.
- She contended that the cases were still in the preliminary investigation phase and thus did not constitute formal charges.
Court Proceedings
- The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Atty. CariAo to comment on the complaints, leading to the re-docketing of the case as a regular administrative matter.
- The matter was referred to the E