EN BANC
[A.C. No. 2614. June 29, 2000]
MAXIMO
DUMADAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On the basis of an administrative complaint
for Unethical Practices, Conflict of Interest and Disloyalty To Clients dated
December 22 1983[1] filed by complainant against respondent praying that
the corresponding disciplinary action be imposed on the latter, the case was
referred to Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) by the Court[2] for investigation and report.
On February 26, 1990, the OSG submitted a
Report[3] finding respondent culpable for infidelity and
disloyalty to his client, negligence of duty, unethical practices and violation
of his lawyer’s oath.[4] As penalty, the OSG recommended that after due
hearing, "respondent be suspended from the practice of law for not less
than five (5) years."[5]
Thereafter, in a Resolution dated May 21,
1991[6] the Court found that respondent made a "clear
breach of the canons of professional responsibility"[7] and suspended respondent indefinitely from the
practice of law.[8]
A "Petition For Reinvestigation and
Reconsideration,"[9] filed on July 8, 1991, was subsequently denied by
the Court per its Resolution dated January 13, 1992.[10]
The records show that thereafter, respondent
sent a letter dated February 17, 1992.[11] Stressing in the said letter that he was not seeking
a reconsideration of the denial of his petition for reinvestigation, respondent
averred in sum that he was a "not very healthy" sixty-two (62) year
old who merely wanted to know how long he would stay suspended and if he was
disqualified to be issued a commission as a notary public considering that his
commission was not renewed. This letter was noted by the Court in a Resolution
dated March 30,1992.[12]
On June 18, 1992, respondent filed a
Manifestation dated May 15, 1992[13] where he prayed that the Court issue a resolution or
decision on his averments that:
1.] he has been
suspended from the practice of law and denied a notarial commission for more
than one (1) year already;
2.] for lack of
practicing lawyers and notaries public in the Municipality of Baganga, Davao
Oriental where Branch VII of the Regional Trial Court and the Second Municipal
Court set a popular public clamor which constrained the undersigned to file the
manifestation;
3.] more than
fifty percent (50%) of the pending civil and criminal cases were cases handled
by the respondent and these cases are still pending resolution especially due
to the lack of lawyers in the municipality considering that most of the
litigants are poor and could not afford to hire lawyers from Mati, the capital
town of Davao Oriental or from Davao City where plane fare coming from said
places is Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) one way with no hotels nor lodges in
Baganga;
4.] there is no
regular judge in Baganga after the retirement of Judge Osias Y. Verano last
March 5, 1992 and many detained accused are in jail without hope for an early
resolution of their cases coupled with the fact that respondent is still under
suspension and they cannot hire "exorbitant" lawyers;
5.] he has been
advised to secure petitions to be signed by all Barangay Chairmen in the
Eighteen (18) Barangays of the municipality, the Seventy-Four (74) Chapters of
the GKK, all NGOs, other religious and civic organizations and to submit them
to the Supreme Court to request the Court to lift his indefinite suspension so
that he may help those who are actually helpless and so that he may be issued a
notarial commission in order to help those who need notarial assistance without
fear of being charged beyond their capacity to pay;
6.] the Court can
refer to the records of Branch VII, RTC, Baganga, Davao Oriental and the same
would show that most of the civil and criminal cases resolved or decided
therein were cases handled by respondent;
7.] the filing of
the Manifestation is for the purpose of requesting the Court to provide him
with advice as to whether the filing of a petition was necessary to lift the
order of his indefinite suspension as well as the issuance of a notarial
commission.
The foregoing manifestation was noted by the
Court in a Resolution dated July 15, 1992.[14]
On July 26, 1994, respondent filed a
Petition For The Lifting Of Respondent’s Suspension From The Practice Of Law[15] which the Court referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for evaluation, report and recommendation in a Resolution
dated March 13, 1995.[16]
In a Report and Recommendation dated August
14, 1998, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the lifting of the
indefinite suspension of respondent. On November 5, 1998, the Board of
Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No. XIII-98-171 adopting the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. In acting favorably on
respondent’s petition, the Investigating Commissioner pointed out that:
Respondent’s plea is anchored on the
following allegations:
"xxx.....xxx.....xxx
4......That respondent accepted his suspension as
God’s grace but due to respondent’s knowledge in law, he has been continuously
approached for legal advice or assistance and what respondent could do is
prepare for them pleadings or documents and to secure practitioners to do what
I am suspended from doing;
5......That respondent has remained busy in his desire
to save and as a matter of fact, with humility, respondent is the Elected
Federation President of the Federation of Senior Citizens and the Invalid[s].
He is a member of the Lupong Tagapayapa and has performed duties as Chairman of
the Pangkat Tagapayapa of Barangay Central, Baganga, Davao Oriental;
6......That respondent, however, has observed that
there are poor people who actually need the services of a Lawyer, and whose
hunger for justice hang mercifully on a cloud of uncertainties (sic), as
they say, here is the jurisdiction of Branch VII at Baganga, Davao Oriental;
7......That actually there are no permanent resident
lawyer[s] in the Municipalities of Boston, Cateel, Baganga and Caraga, all in
the First District of Davao Oriental. The three practicing lawyer[s] come only
to Baganga during court hearings and since they reside in the City of Davao
their fees are high. Notarial services could not be rendered regularly;
8......That I feel capable to fill the vacuum and be
able to serve the poor people but there is need for the undersigned to request
and pray the Supreme Court to lift the suspension imposed.
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice
dated January 10, 2000, respondent who turned Seventy-One (71) years old last
October 25, 1999, once again implores and at the same time chides the Court for
‘slumbering’ on acting upon the IBP Resolution to lift his indefinite
suspension, although he still insists on his innocence.
The insolence of respondent’s remonstrations
that the Court has been sleeping on its job in acting upon his case not only
underscores his callous disregard of the myriad administrative and judicial
travails the Court has to contend with as the Tribunal of Last Resort, among
them, the chronic problem of an overflowing docket of which his case is but one
additional aggravation; it also betrays his absolute lack of appreciation and
disrespect for the efforts and measures undertaken by the Court to cope with
these concerns. Needless to state, such presumptuousness is only too deserving
of rebuke.
Respondent must know that the Court is
neither bound by the findings of the IBP nor, much less, obliged to accept the
same as a matter of course[17] because as the Tribunal which has the final say on
the proper sanctions to be imposed on errant members of both bench and bar,[18] the Court has the prerogative of making its own
findings and rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the
IBP, OSG, or any lower court to whom an administrative complaint has been
referred to for investigation and report. Indeed, Sections 1, 14, 15, 16 and 17
of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court state that:
SEC. 1. How
instituted. – Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any
person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of
and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said
facts.
The IBP Board of
Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by
a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and
prosecute proper charges against any erring attorneys including those in the
government service; Provided, however, that all charges against Justices
of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court
of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are charged with them, shall
be filed with the Supreme Court; Provided, further, that charges filed
against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to
their appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication. (italics supplied)
Six (6) copies of
the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the
Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same to the
IBP Boar of Governors for assignment to an investigator.[19]
SEC. 14. Report
of the Solicitor General or other Court designated Investigator. – Based
upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other
Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court
a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations together with the
record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the final
action of the Supreme Court. (italics supplied).
SEC. 15. Suspension
of attorney by Supreme Court. – After receipt of respondent’s answer or
lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the
instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the
Investigators, may suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for
any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of the
investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court. (italics
supplied)
SEC. 16. Suspension
of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. – The Court
of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice of any
of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the
Supreme Court in the case. (italics supplied)
SEC. 17. Upon
suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in
Supreme Court. - Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional
Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of
the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same
was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme
Court shall make full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or
extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant. (italics
supplied)
For all respondent’s protestations to the
contrary, the Court is hardly convinced of his innocence for his culpability
has been established and aptly adjudicated upon. While the harshness of an
indefinite suspension, more so when viewed in the light of the prevailing
circumstances of this case, can not be gainsaid, it must be stressed that –
The indefiniteness
of respondent’s suspension, far from being "cruel" or
"degrading" or "inhuman" has the effect of placing, as it
were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in
his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving respondent the chance
to purge himself in his own good time of his contempt and misconduct
by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and
demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards
of conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the
courts.[20]
Respondent’s suspension for more than nine
(9) years to date, for his professional indiscretion, underscored by his
insistent protestations of innocence, appears not to have fully reformed him
and opened his eyes to the error of his ways. Such an unrepentant attitude and
unwillingness to acknowledge his misconduct puts his fitness for re-admission
to the practice of law under serious inquiry. Respondent must always remember
that -
[T]he practice of
law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards
of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required
for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession,
has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline
its members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well xxx That is why
respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members.[21]
As has been stated earlier, the indefiniteness
of respondent’s suspension puts in his hands the key for the restoration of his
rights and privileges as a lawyer. Until such time as he has purged himself of
his misconduct and acknowledged the same by exhibiting appropriate repentance
and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting
standards of conduct demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the
court, respondent’s suspension must deservingly be fixed at ten (10) years.
Consequently, the same may only be lifted after the expiration of the said
period, counted from the time when his suspension actually commenced.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the period of
respondent’s suspension from the practice of law is hereby fixed at Ten (10)
Years. The "Petition For The Lifting Of Respondent’s Suspension From The
Practice Of Law" is, therefore, DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo.
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Ibid., p. 61.
[3] Id., pp. 63-86.
[4] Id., p. 86.
[5] Id.,
[6] Id., pp. 147-154.
[7] Id., p. 153.
[8] Id., p. 154.
[9] Id., pp. 143-144.
[10] Id., p. 166.
[11] Id., pp. 167-168.
[12] Id., p. 170.
[13] Id., pp. 171-172.
[14] Id., p. 175.
[15] Id., pp. 177-178.
[16] Id., p. 196.
[17] See Felicidad Cottam v. Atty. Estrella O. Laysa, A.C. No. 4834, 29 February 2000, p. 4.
[18] Sections 15, 16, and 17, Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court.
[19] As amended by Bar Matter No. 1960, 1 May 2000.
[20] Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989)
[21] Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, 251 SCRA 201 (1995), citing Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 132 (1993)