Title
Prieto vs. Corpuz
Case
A.C. No. 6517
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2006
Atty. Prieto accused Judge Fe and Atty. Corpuz of misconduct in handling related civil cases; SC dismissed the complaint, fined Prieto for frivolity, and found no evidence of wrongdoing by respondents.
administrative complaint
dishonesty
serious misconduct

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6517)

Factual Background and Origins of the Dispute

The records showed that in October 1992, Salud Andrada Marquez mortgaged six parcels of land to the Rural Bank of Luna, La Union, Inc., including a parcel covered by OCT No. FP-15344, under a Free Patent granted on 5 July 1989. After failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and, on 2 August 1993, sold the mortgaged properties at public auction to Atty. Marcos V. Prieto as highest bidder. As a result, OCT No. FP-15344 was cancelled and TCT No. T-40223 was issued in Prieto’s name. Prieto, acting through attorneys-in-fact Antonio O. Prieto and Monette O. Prieto, later mortgaged the same properties to Far East Bank and Trust Company, which later merged with the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

Marquez’s daughter, Roque, filed Civil Case No. 1081-BG in the RTC Branch 67 for Declaration of Nullity of Contracts with Damages, naming Prieto and the banks. At that time, respondent Judge Ferdinand A. Fe was a practicing lawyer and was retained as counsel of record for Roque; he drafted the complaint. On 18 August 2000, the RTC Branch 67 dismissed the case on the ground that Roque was not a real party in interest, since her right of action had not yet ripened upon Marquez’s death.

Respondent Fe was appointed presiding judge of the RTC Branch 67 on 8 November 2001. Upon his appointment, he severed his professional relationships with his clients, including Roque, and relinquished case records. Marquez died on 9 August 2002, after which Roque, now having acquired by succession the right to pursue annulment, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz. On 5 January 2004, Corpuz filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Contracts, Reconveyance of Property, and Damages against Prieto and the banks, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1518-BG, before the RTC of Bauang, La Union.

Raffle, Inhibition, and Transfer of the Records

For Civil Case No. 1518-BG, the case was raffled on 7 January 2004 to respondent judge. On 8 January 2004, summons and a copy of the complaint were issued and were served upon Prieto on 20 January 2004. When respondent Fe reviewed the individual case folders of newly raffled cases, he noted that the plaintiff was Roque, his former client. Without examining the allegations of the complaint, Fe issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself and ordering the transfer of the record to the RTC Branch 33 of Bauang, La Union.

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 through its Clerk of Court, Atty. Richard T. Domingo. Since the records had already been transmitted, pleadings later filed with RTC Branch 67 were forwarded there. Prieto separately filed with RTC Branch 67 an Objection to Competency and his Answer to the complaint on 30 January 2004, with the understanding that these were forwarded to RTC Branch 33 for continuation of the case. From that point, proceedings were conducted by RTC Branch 33.

On 22 April 2004, after issues were joined, Presiding Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim of RTC Branch 33 set the case for pre-trial and ordered submission of pre-trial briefs. On 24 May 2004, Prieto filed an Amended Answer with authority from his co-defendants and a pre-trial brief.

Initiation of the Administrative Complaint and Investigation

Prieto filed an administrative complaint alleging that respondent judge and respondent lawyer had acted improperly in relation to Civil Case No. 1518-BG, particularly because the plaintiff was the judge’s former client in Civil Case No. 1081-BG and because certain portions of the complaint were allegedly copied from Civil Case No. 1081-BG. Prieto argued that these acts implied malice or wrongful intent rather than mere error. He further asserted that respondent judge violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and he claimed that respondent lawyer committed deceit by placing his signature in a complaint not written by him.

In a Resolution dated 28 September 2005, the Second Division of the Supreme Court referred the administrative case to Court of Appeals Justice Josefina G. Salonga for investigation, report, and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt. Justice Salonga conducted hearings starting on 13 December 2005 and directed the parties to submit relevant documents. At the hearing, after documentary evidence was marked and offered, the parties manifested that they would no longer adduce further evidence. Upon motion, they were granted thirty (30) days to file simultaneous memoranda. Prieto submitted his memorandum on 13 December 2005, respondent judge on 18 January 2006, and respondent lawyer on 20 January 2006.

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Justice

In the report, Justice Salonga recommended that the administrative complaint be dismissed and that Prieto be admonished for filing a frivolous complaint. She concluded that Prieto’s allegations were bereft of factual and legal basis and relied on speculation and conjecture. She emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rested on the complainant and failure to discharge it required dismissal.

Specifically, Justice Salonga found unsupported Prieto’s allegation that respondent lawyer had free access to the records of Civil Case No. 1081-BG through the help of respondent judge and was allowed to copy portions of the complaint. She reasoned that respondent judge had already relinquished the case records to Roque upon his assumption as judge, and that Roque and her retained counsel had the right to request access for reproduction or certification. She also found that the adoption of relevant portions of pleadings prepared earlier was not, by itself, unethical, especially since such allegations were essential to the cause of action.

The Administrative Complaint’s Core Allegations

Prieto’s administrative theory proceeded on the inference that because the complaint in Civil Case No. 1518-BG allegedly contained paragraphs copied from Civil Case No. 1081-BG, respondent lawyer must have obtained the Civil Case No. 1081-BG records with the aid of respondent judge, thereby violating judicial ethics and undermining impartiality. Prieto also contended that it was improper for Civil Case No. 1518-BG to be raffled to respondent judge, given that he had earlier represented Roque in Civil Case No. 1081-BG. Lastly, Prieto alleged that respondent judge should have continued to try Civil Case No. 1518-BG and that the judge’s inhibition was improperly framed in Prieto’s later pleadings, implying bad faith in respondent’s conduct and in the handling of the case.

Justice Salonga’s Findings on the Alleged Misconduct

Justice Salonga held that Prieto’s accusations did not withstand evidentiary scrutiny. She ruled that Prieto’s allegation regarding access to the records was bare and unsupported by evidence. She likewise rejected Prieto’s attempt to transform the rewriting or retention of essential allegations into proof of illegal or unethical conduct. She added that Prieto’s claim of copying, even if partially true, did not demonstrate wrongdoing because there were limited ways to express allegations and because essential facts could legitimately reappear when the later complaint pursued the same underlying cause.

On respondent judge’s inhibition, Justice Salonga found Prieto’s narrative misleading. The records showed that respondent judge had already issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself and ordering transfer to RTC Branch 33. Yet, Prieto’s filings in the administrative case attempted to create the impression that respondent judge refused to inhibit and was still conducting proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG. Justice Salonga concluded that Prieto deliberately suppressed the inhibition and transfer order and that the administrative case itself was frivolous and calculated to harass and cast groundless suspicion.

Counter-Petitions and Administrative Liability of the Complainant

The respondents filed separate counter-petitions seeking Prieto’s administrative liability for filing an unfounded and frivolous suit. Justice Salonga found merit in the counter-petitions, holding that Prieto had misled the Court by imputing wrongdoing without evidence and by using the administrative process to disrupt and harass. She stated that Prieto’s conduct tarnished the integrity of the judiciary and the bar.

Justice Salonga recommended that Prieto be cited in contempt consistent with the principles reiterated in Galman Cruz vs. Alino-Hormachuelos, where the Court emphasized that the right to litigate must be exercised in good faith. She stressed that lawyers must assist in proper administration of justice and should not burden the courts with frivolous petitions. She relied upon the Code of Professional Responsibility, including the explicit instruction in Canon 12 that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. She noted that Prieto’s conduct violated ethical duties by misleading the Court and by filing baseless charges that desecrated the integrity of the judiciary.

Supreme Court’s Review and Disposition

The Supreme Court reviewed the record and approved Justice Salonga’s report, with a modification solely on the penalty. The Court sustained Justice Salonga’s factual conclusions and evidentiary assessment, concluding that Prieto’s allegations were indeed unfounded. The Supreme Court ruled that Prieto should be sanctioned for filing an unfounded complaint, while also acknowledging that the exercise of the right to litigate is not absolutely penal in itself, provided it is done in good faith.

The Supreme Court found that Prieto misled the Court into believing that respondent judge was still conducting proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG, even though respondent judge had already inhibited himself on 23 January 2004.

...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