Case Summary (G.R. No. 150256)
Procedural referral and investigation
The Supreme Court’s Second Division referred the administrative complaint to Court of Appeals Justice Josefina G. Salonga for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Salonga held a hearing, received documentary evidence, and gave parties time to file memoranda. The report was transmitted and later adopted with modification by the Supreme Court. The investigative phase included factual compilation of the underlying property and litigation history and review of the pleadings and procedural acts taken in the trial courts.
Underlying factual background (property and prior litigation)
In October 1992 Marquez mortgaged six parcels to Rural Bank of Luna; upon foreclosure one parcel (formerly OCT No. FP-15344) was sold and transferred to petitioner (TCT No. T-40223). Petitioner, via attorneys-in-fact, then mortgaged the property to Far East Bank. Roque (Marquez’s daughter) filed Civil Case No. 1081-BG seeking nullification of the mortgages and reconveyance. Respondent judge was Roque’s counsel at that time and drafted the complaint. RTC Branch 67 dismissed 1081-BG on 18 August 2000 for lack of ripeness because Marquez was still alive.
Subsequent events leading to Civil Case No. 1518-BG
Respondent judge was appointed presiding judge of RTC Branch 67 on 8 November 2001, after which he relinquished his private case records to his former clients. Marquez died on 9 August 2002, after which Roque (as successor) engaged respondent lawyer. On 5 January 2004 respondent lawyer filed Civil Case No. 1518-BG (Declaration of Nullity of Contracts, Reconveyance, and Damages) on behalf of Roque. The case was raffled to respondent judge on 7 January 2004 but the respondent judge promptly inhibited himself by order dated 23 January 2004, directing transmission of the record to RTC Branch 33.
Petitioner’s procedural actions in the trial court
Petitioner was served with summons on 20 January 2004 and later filed pleadings, including an Objection to Competence and an Answer filed on 30 January 2004. Because the records had already been transmitted to RTC Branch 33 following respondent judge’s inhibition, subsequent proceedings and pretrial matters proceeded before RTC Branch 33, where petitioner actively participated (filing amended answer, pretrial brief, etc.).
Investigator’s findings and respondent defenses
The investigator (Justice Salonga) found that petitioner’s allegations lacked evidentiary support. Key findings included: (1) respondent judge had relinquished his private case records to Roque upon taking the bench in 2001, so there was no continuing control of records by the judge; (2) respondent lawyer had legitimate access to and right to request and receive the prior case records from his client Roque and legitimately relied upon pleadings and allegations essential to the cause of action; (3) while some allegations in the two complaints overlapped, those allegations were material and necessary to Roque’s cause of action and their similarity did not prove improper copying facilitated by the judge; and (4) respondent judge promptly inhibited himself upon discovery of his prior representation and ordered transfer of the record to another branch, negating any claim he intended to try 1518-BG.
Legal standards applied and burden of proof
The report emphasized that in administrative proceedings the burden of proof lies with the complainant to prove the charged misconduct. Mere speculation, conjecture, or bare allegations are insufficient. The investigator applied standards from the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility: judges must embody competence, integrity and independence (Canon 1); lawyers as officers of the court must assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice (Canon 12) and must not use litigation to harass or unduly prejudice opposing parties (Canons 8 and 10). The investigator also relied on precedents cited in the record to support that unfounded or malicious administrative charges should be dismissed.
Analysis of the alleged access to and copying of pleadings
The report reasoned that there was no proof respondent judge granted respondent lawyer special access to court records after his appointment. The judge had, by his own account and on record, turned over his private files to his clients in 2001. It was reasonable and expected for Roque to provide those records to her new counsel. Overlap in pleadings was explained as retention of essential allegations necessary to the cause of action, not proof of illicit copying or judicial assistance. The existence of similar or even substantially similar language does not in itself demonstrate misconduct where the substance is material and the prior counsel had authored the original complaint.
Analysis of the alleged failure to inhibit and/or intent to try the case
The report found petitioner’s claim that respondent judge intended to try 1518-BG to be fabricated. The judge’s Order of inhibition dated 23 January 2004, and the transmission of the case record to RTC Branch 33 were undisputed and contradicted petitioner’s suggestion that the judge refused to inhibit or sought to preside over a case involving his former client. Petitioner had actual knowledge of the inhibition and thereafter participated in proceedings before Branch 33, undermining his allegation that the judge sought to retain jurisdiction or influence the proceedings.
Conclusion on respondents’ culpability
Based on the foregoing findings and evidentiary record, the investigator recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Ferdinand A. Fe and Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the complaint unfounded and devoid of the proof necessary to sustain charges of dishonesty or serious misconduct. The Court characterized petitioner’s allegations as speculative, conclusory, and designed to harass and to cast unwarranted suspicion on the integrity of the respondents and the judiciary.
Counter-petitions and sanctions against petitioner
Respondents filed co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 150256)
Case Caption and Procedural Identifier
- Reported at 539 Phil. 65, FIRST DIVISION, Administrative Case No. 6517, decided December 06, 2006.
- Complainant: Atty. Marcos V. Prieto.
- Respondents: Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz and Judge Ferdinand A. Fe.
- Resolution authored by Justice Chicho- - Nazario (CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).
- Matter originated as an administrative complaint referred by the Second Division of the Supreme Court to Court of Appeals Justice Josefina G. Salonga for investigation, report and recommendation.
Nature and Grounds of the Administrative Complaint
- Administrative complaint filed by Atty. Marcos V. Prieto against:
- Judge Ferdinand A. Fe in his capacity both as member of the bar and as a member of the bench; and
- Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz as a member of the bar.
- Alleged violations: dishonesty and serious misconduct prejudicial to the integrity and dignity of the Judiciary under Section 27, Rule 138 and Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The complaint concerned the respondents' actuations in relation to:
- Civil Case No. 1081-BG — Yolanda M. Roque v. Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, et al.; and
- Civil Case No. 1518-BG — Yolanda Marquez Roque v. Atty. Marcos V. Prieto, et al.
Core Allegations Advanced by the Complainant
- The respondent lawyer allegedly obtained free access to the records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG with the aid of respondent Judge Fe and was given liberty to copy portions of the records to aid in litigation.
- Invoking res ipsa loquitur, complainant objected that Civil Case No. 1518-BG was raffled to respondent Judge Fe, who had formerly been counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1081-BG.
- Some paragraphs in the complaint in Civil Case No. 1518-BG were allegedly copied from Civil Case No. 1081-BG where the complaint had been prepared by respondent Judge Fe as then-counsel of the (then) plaintiff.
- Complainant maintained these actions constituted misconduct implying malice or wrongful intent rather than mere errors of judgment.
- Complainant asserted that respondent Judge Fe’s trying the case in which the plaintiff had been his former client and which contained complaint language he had previously prepared did not bode well for his intention in disposition of the case and violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Complainant further alleged that respondent lawyer Corpuz placing his signature on a complaint not written by him amounted to deceit and a ground for disbarment.
Factual Background (Title, Mortgages, Foreclosure and Transfer)
- In October 1992, Salud Andrada Marquez mortgaged six parcels of land to Rural Bank of Luna, La Union, Inc.; one parcel measured Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine Square Meters (22,599 sq. meters) covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. FP-15344 under a Free Patent granted on 5 July 1989.
- The mortgage was foreclosed for failure to pay; on 2 August 1993 the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction, the highest bidder being the petitioner (Atty. Marcos V. Prieto).
- Thereafter OCT No. FP-15344 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-40223 was issued in the name of the petitioner.
- Petitioner, through his attorneys-in-fact Antonio O. Prieto and Monette O. Prieto, mortgaged the properties to Far East Bank and Trust Company.
Chronology of Relevant Litigation (Civil Case No. 1081-BG and No. 1518-BG)
- Yolanda M. Roque (daughter of Marquez) filed Civil Case No. 1081-BG in RTC Branch 67 for Declaration of Nullity of Contracts with Damages against petitioner, Rural Bank of Luna and Far East Bank.
- Respondent Judge Ferdinand A. Fe, then a practicing lawyer, was retained by Roque as counsel of record in Civil Case No. 1081-BG and drafted the complaint therein.
- On 18 August 2000, RTC Branch 67 (Presiding Judge Jose G. Pineda) dismissed Civil Case No. 1081-BG on the ground that Roque was not a real party in interest because her right of action would ripen only upon the death of her mother.
- Respondent Judge Fe was appointed presiding judge of RTC Branch 67 on 8 November 2001, and by reason of his appointment severed professional relationships with his clients and relinquished case records of his office to said clients.
- Salud Andrada Marquez died on 9 August 2002; Roque then acquired by succession her mother's right of action and engaged respondent lawyer Corpuz.
- On 5 January 2004 respondent lawyer Corpuz filed Civil Case No. 1518-BG (Declaration of Nullity of Contracts, Reconveyance of Property, and Damages) against petitioner and others before RTC Bauang, La Union.
- On 7 January 2004 Civil Case No. 1518-BG was raffled to respondent Judge Fe (then presiding judge of RTC Branch 67).
- Summons were issued on 8 January 2004 and served on petitioner on 20 January 2004.
- Upon discovering the plaintiff was his former client, respondent Judge Fe issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case and ordered transmission of the case record to RTC Branch 33.
- On 27 January 2004 the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 67 transmitted the entire record of Civil Case No. 1518-BG to RTC Branch 33 (Clerk Atty. Richard T. Domingo), which was duly received.
- On 30 January 2004 petitioner filed an Objection to Competency and his Answer; these pleadings were forwarded to RTC Branch 33 due to prior transmission.
- Proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG thereafter continued before RTC Branch 33. On 22 April 2004 the case was set for pre-trial by Presiding Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim; on 24 May 2004 petitioner filed an Amended Answer and pre-trial brief.
Investigation, Hearing and Submission before the Investigator
- In a Resolution dated 28 September 2005 the Second Division referred the administrative case to Justice Josefina G. Salonga for investigation, report and recommendation within 90 days from receipt; a copy of that Resolution was received on 18 November 2005.
- Justice Salonga set the case for hearing on 13 December 2005 and directed parties and witnesses to appear and submit documents relevant to the complaint.
- At the scheduled hearing the complainant and respondent Judge Fe, after marking and offering documentary evidence, manifested they would not adduce further evidence.
- The parties were given thirty (30) days to simultaneously file their Memoranda after which the case would be deemed submitted.
- Memoranda were filed: complainant on 13 December 2005; respondent Judge Fe on 18 January 2006; respondent lawyer Corpuz on 20 January 2006.
Investigator’s (Justice Salonga’s) Findings and Recommendation
- Justice Salonga summarized the factual background (mortgage, foreclosure, auction, title transfer, prior dismissal of Civil Case No. 1081-BG, respondent judge’s prior role as counsel, relinquishment of records, subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 1518-BG, raffle to respondent judge, respondent judge’s inhibition and transmission to Branch 33, and subsequent proceedings).
- She recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondents and admonishment of the complainant for filing a frivolous complaint.
- Key findings included:
- The administrative case was unfounded and devoid of factual and