Case Summary (A.C. No. 11533)
Applicable Law
The decision rendered by the Supreme Court is grounded in the rules and standards provided by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly focusing on the Code of Professional Responsibility that governs the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines.
Antecedent Facts
On October 12, 2015, the Chuas filed a complaint for perjury against multiple individuals, including Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra, asserting that false statements were made regarding post-dated checks issued in favor of Chain Glass Enterprises, Inc. The complaints were docketed as I.S. NO. XV-07-INV-15J-05513. On December 28, 2015, SACP Tan-Sollano recommended the dismissal of the charges due to a lack of probable cause, a recommendation supported by DCP Julianda-Sarmiento and SDCP Sulla. This decision was contested by the Chuas through a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by SACP Ofrecio-Gonzales and DCP Obejas.
Grounds for the Complaint
The administrative complaint against the five prosecutors was based on allegations of grave abuse of discretion, ignorance of the law, abuse of power, and gross misconduct. The Chuas contended that the dismissal of their perjury complaint was improper and indicative of the prosecutors' failure to perform their duties properly.
Ruling of the Court
Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the Chuas had not sufficiently demonstrated, through clear and preponderant evidence, that the respondents had committed any infractions warranting administrative sanctions. The Court underscored the complainants' burden to establish their allegations with substantial evidence. The mere assertion of wrongdoing without supporting evidence does not fulfill this burden. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Chuas appeared to be motivated by retaliation against the prosecutors for dismissing their previous case, raising questions about the intent behind the administrative complaint.
Legal Remedies
The Court also highlighted that any alleged errors by prosecutors in adjudicating probable cause should be addressed through judicial remedies rather than administrative proceedings. Since the perjury case filed by the Chuas was still active and they had ava
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 11533)
Parties Involved
- Complainants:
- Greta A. Chua
- Edwin S. Chua (collectively referred to as Spouses Chua)
- Respondents:
- Teresa Belinda G. Tan-Sollano (Senior Assistant City Prosecutor)
- Maria Gene Z. Julianda-Sarmiento (Deputy City Prosecutor)
- Eufrosino A. Sulla (Senior Deputy City Prosecutor)
- Suwerte L. Ofrecio-Gonzales (Senior Assistant City Prosecutor)
- Joselito D.R. Obejas (Deputy City Prosecutor)
- Case Reference: A.C. No. 11533
- Date of Resolution: June 06, 2017
Background of the Case
- The administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Spouses Chua against the respondents for alleged misconduct in their official capacities.
- The core allegations against the respondents included:
- Grave abuse of discretion
- Ignorance of the law
- Abuse of power or authority
- Gross misconduct
Antecedent Facts
- On October 12, 2015, Spouses Chua lodged a complaint for Perjury and False Testimony against several individuals, including Atty. Rudy T. Tasarra and Luz O. Talusan, among others.
- The complaint alleged that Talusan committed perjury by stating that Spouses Chua issued 11 post-dated checks to Chain Glass Enterprises, Inc. (CGEI) on July 11, 2009, when in fact, the checks were issued on February 23, 2009, to replace previously bounced checks.
- Following the filing of the complaint, a resolution dated Decem