EN BANC
|
ATTY. VICTORIANO S.
MURING, JR., Complainant, |
A.M.
No. CA-05-19-P Present: |
|
- versus - ATTY. MANUEL T. GATCHO, Court Attorney V,
NELPA LOTA-CALAYAG, Executive Assistant V,
and ATTY. EDNA S. PAÑA,
Respondents. |
PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
On 28 February 2003, Atty. Victoriano
S. Muring, Jr. (“complainant”) filed a
Complaint-Affidavit[1]
before this Court against respondents Atty. Manuel T. Gatcho
(“Atty. Gatcho”), Nelpa Lota-Calayag (“Calayag”), and
Atty. Edna S. Paña (“Atty. Paña”),
charging that:
1. Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag, complainant’s co-employees at the office of Court of Appeals Justice
Bernardo P. Abesamis (“Justice Abesamis,”
now retired), demanded
and received from Atty. Paña P450,000 to
facilitate a favorable decision from Court of Appeals Justice Roberto Barrios
(“Justice Barrios”) in a case then handled by Atty. Paña
for her employer.
2. Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag also demanded P150,000 from Atty. Paña and her employer in exchange for a favorable decision
from Supreme Court Justice Jose A. R. Melo (“Justice Melo,” now retired).
3.
Atty. Paña disclosed the
receipt of the P450,000 to
complainant and to Atty. Ma. Paz Besonaya (“Atty. Besonaya”), a court attorney from the office of Court of
Appeals Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, during a “get-together” at Cafe Breton
in Malate, Manila in October 2002.
4. On P450,000.
5.
Soon after, Atty. Paña sent
complainant threatening text messages, pressuring him to prevent Atty. Besonaya from informing Justice Barrios about the pay-off.
Atty. Gatcho and Calayag
also subjected complainant to “verbal abuse” for the same purpose.
6.
On
7. Justice Abesamis directed complainant not to divulge
to anyone what he had heard about the pay-off story, to refrain from talking to
Atty. Besonaya, and to “cooperate” with Atty. Gatcho. On
8.
On
On
Calayag filed her Comment on
The truth of the matter is that
on
x x x x
With
respect to the allegations x x x
regarding the event which transpired on
x x x x
[Atty.
Paña] was at the office on that date and time
purposely to confront Atty. Muring regarding his
claim that the former has been spreading rumors against me.[3]
In
his Comment dated
I helped [Atty. Paña] obtain
a copy of an already promulgated decision from the Reporters’ Office, which gesture, I honestly believe, is not violative
of any existing rule or regulation governing a government employee.
x x x
x
In [complainant’s] affidavit, he would not believe that I
wanted a confrontation with him x x x. As the [Officer-in-Charge], it was my responsibility to
make sure that everything goes well in the office. x x
x
x x x
x
[Complainant] did not want to talk about his work habit
in the office. My only concern that time was how to improve our output in doing
research for Justice Abesamis.[4] x x x
In her
Affidavit dated
Complainant
filed his Reply to Comments[7] on
Complainant
also attached the
following affidavits to his Reply:
1.
Annex “A,”
the Affidavit of Atty. Donna B. Pascual (“Atty. Pascual) dated 3 July 2003, attesting that (a) “sometime in
November 2002, [Atty. Paña] called me several times
requesting me to dissuade [Atty. Besonaya] from reporting
to Justice Barrios of the Court of Appeals a pay-off back in the year 2000,
that involved her (Atty. Paña), [Calayag],
and a certain Nuel (Atty. Gatcho),
regarding a case then pending with the office of Justice Barrios”; and (b)
“Again, on December 6, 2002, [Atty. Paña] called me.
This time, she related to me the circumstances regarding her going to the
office of Justice Abesamis in the afternoon of x x x
2. Annex “B,” the Affidavit of Atty. Besonaya
dated
2.
In the late
afternoon/early evening [sometime in October 2002], I obliged to meet [Atty. Paña]. We met at the guardhouse of the main entrance of the
Court of Appeals. We then proceeded to the nearby Peking Wok Restaurant along
3.
From Peking Wok
Restaurant, [Atty. Paña]
and I proceeded to Cafe Breton in Malate,
4.
To our surprise,
[Atty. Paña] blurted out, “Humingi
nga sa akin ng P450,000 yang dalawang yan sa kaso
dati ni Tanchi
kay Barrios!,” referring [to Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]. Upon hearing
those words, I madly reacted, “Tarantado ka
Edna, totoo ba yan?! Sasabihin ko yan kay
Barrios. Alam mong close kay Tatay yon! [Atty. Paña] retorted, “Gusto mo tawagan
mo pa si Mr. Estrella!”
5.
[Atty. Paña] further said that [Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag] volunteered and claimed to her that they
could arrange and/or facilitate a favorable decision from Justice Barrios.
That, as she could not handle anymore [Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag’s] demands as regards
the case, she told them to call and speak with Mr. Peter Tanchi,
Sr, instead. [Atty. Paña] said
that both [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]
ended up calling and speaking with Mr. Estrella
and Mr. Tanchi,
Sr.
6.
I felt very upset
after [Atty. Paña’s] declaration. I could
not believe that [Calayag and Atty. Gatcho] were involved in a case fixing and dared to have
supposedly fixed a case with a Justice whom I know personally and
professionally x x x to be
a man of unquestionable integrity and independence. I could not believe that
the likes of [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]
would go to the extent of demanding and accepting money from a litigant, at the
expense of Justice Barrios’s good
name and put in disrepute the latter’s integrity, that of the Court of Appeals, and the entire judiciary
as an institution.
7.
Still, [Atty. Paña] continued her story. She said that after the P450,000
pay-off, [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]
again demanded P150,000 from her after the Supreme Court issued a Minute
Resolution dismissing the petition for review on certiorari in another case she
was handling with the same Mr. Tanchi, Sr.’s company. According to Atty. Paña, [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag] represented
that [Atty. Gatcho], who allegedly [could] go in and
out of the Office of Justice Melo, was responsible
for the favorable resolution dismissing the petition. x x x [Atty. Paña] said that after
verification later, she discovered that the said case was actually resolved by
Justice Panganiban [and] not Justice Melo contrary to the representation of [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]. Allegedly,
Mr. Tanchi, Sr. refused to give in to [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag’s]
demand for P150,000 but offered to give P10,000 as token instead.
According to [Atty. Paña], [Atty. Gatcho]
through [Calayag] refused to receive the P10,000
token. [Atty. Paña] also said that the P150,000
demand of [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]
primarily caused her falling apart with Mr. Tanchi,
Sr. and the rest of her employers, that eventually led to her resignation as
the in-house counsel of the Tanchi Group of Companies
x x x.[9]
x
x x x
Atty. Besonaya further disclosed that Atty. Paña
went to her house several days after their meeting at Cafe Breton. There, Atty.
Paña made the following revelations:
That
the P450,000 cash demanded by [Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag]
was delivered [to] the Office of Justice Abesamis,
Centennial Building of the Court of Appeals, by Mr. Estrella
accompanied by [Atty. Paña], and received thereat by
both [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag]
one afternoon, sometime prior to the promulgation of the decision x x x.
That
the decision in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 49363, entitled Credito
Asiatic, Inc., et al. v. DARAB, et al. penned by Justice Barrios was
promulgated on March 15, 2000, which case she said was the subject of a
Petition for Review on Certiorari pending with the Supreme Court x x x.
That
in the afternoon of
That before
the close of office hours that same day, [Calayag]
handed to her an advance copy of the decision. [Calayag]
represented that she was given the advance copy of the decision by the Division
Clerk of Court, Atty. Caroline Peralta. x x x
x x x x
That
the amount of P10,000 which Mr. Tanchi, Sr.
obliged to give to [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag] was delivered to [Calayag]
one Sunday in September 2000 just across De La Salle University outside Henry’s, P150,000 demanded.
Respondent
[Atty. Paña] also confirmed that she was referring to
the same white letter envelope the contents of which she showed me one Sunday
afternoon during the September 2000 Bar Examinations, containing P1,000-peso
denominations, to be the same envelope that [Calayag]
declined to receive earlier that afternoon.
x x x x
That
x x x it was not advisable
for [Atty. Paña] then to formally speak of the
pay-off prior to November 7, 2000, as it [would] prejudice and hamper the
ongoing negotiation between her and the Tanchi Group
for compromise/settlement, the tentative date of which according to [Atty. Paña] was November 6, 2002. x x x
x x x x
Around
[Atty. Paña] spoke in a
complete turnaround. She told me that she pity (sic) [Calayag]
as she has been sick lately x x x.
She also said that the pay-off transaction between her, [Atty. Gatcho], and [Calayag] should not
be taken as an issue against anyone, after all, she is a practicing lawyer who
would sometimes resort to such means to win her case.
My
last words to her was, “Oh, you have a sudden change of heart?! Bakit takot ka na kay [Atty. Gatcho]
ngayon?” She answered back, “Paz, kasi if it would involve their (Atty. Gatcho and Calayag’s)
career, they may harm you back.” x x x
From
then on, I cut all communications with [Atty. Paña].
x x x[10]
On 26
August 2003, this Court resolved to refer
the matter to Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam
(“Justice Sundiam”) of the Court of Appeals for
investigation, report and recommendation.[11]
Findings of the Investigating Justice
Justice Sundiam conducted hearings on the case from 16 October 2003
to 25 May 2004. All of the parties appeared except for Atty. Paña, who was then in the United Kingdom. Atty. Paña submitted a Rejoinder/Comment (“Comment”)[12] executed before Consul-General Mario de Leon of the
Philippine Embassy in London. In her Comment, Atty. Paña
reiterated her defense that “this case is all about intrigues and malicious
accusations borne out of extreme anger due to the dismissal from office by
[complainant] x x x.”[13]
On 19
April 2005, Justice Sundiam submitted his Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). Justice Sundiam concluded
that the evidence adduced by complainant, as supported by the testimonies of
Atty. Pascual and Atty. Besonaya,
depicted a more convincing story in contrast to the denials made by Atty. Gatcho and Calayag. On the other
hand, Justice Sundiam found Atty. Paña
to be a “victim of circumstances” because it appeared that she did not solicit
“the help of [Atty.] Gatcho
and Calayag and/or offered a bribe to or through
them,” but it was
Atty. Gatcho and Calayag
who represented that they could “facilitate the issuance of a favorable
decision x x x.”[14]
With
both Atty. Gatcho and Calayag
already resigned from the Court of Appeals, Justice Sundiam
recommended that “whatever benefits [they] may be entitled arising from their
previous employment x x x
be forfeited and that they be forever barred from employment in any government
agency.”[15] Atty. Paña, however, “may be
absolved of any liability or may be admonished.”[16]
The Issues
The
issues in this case are:
1. Whether Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag demanded and received P450,000
from Atty.
Paña or her employer to facilitate a favorable
decision in a case before the office of Court of Appeals Justice Roberto
Barrios.
2.
Whether Atty.
Gatcho and Calayag demanded
P150,000 from Atty. Paña or her employer, with
the representation that they could facilitate a favorable decision in a case
before the office of Supreme Court Justice Jose A.R. Melo.[17]
The Court’s Ruling
We
cannot sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice.
Complaint not supported by
substantial evidence
We have
repeatedly held that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative
cases is substantial evidence, i.e.,
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.[18]
Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[19]
A thorough examination of the records
shows that complainant’s case is founded mainly on statements uttered by Atty. Paña to
complainant and to Atty. Besonaya. Complainant and
Atty. Besonaya had no personal knowledge of the
alleged pay-off. As noted in the
Report, complainant himself admitted this lack of personal knowledge:
Well
to note, however, are the following admissions by [complainant] during his
cross-examination (TSN, November 10, 2003): that [Atty. Paña]
told him about the “pay-off” by merely mentioning “kaso
ni Tanchi”; that he was
not present when the alleged P450,000 was allegedly given to [Atty. Gatcho] and Calayag; that he was
not present during the alleged “pay-off”; that he was not present when [Atty. Gatcho] and Calayag demanded the P150,000
from the employer of [Atty. Paña] anent the case with
Justice Melo; that it was the story of [Atty. Paña] that [Atty. Gatcho] and Calayag did not receive the P150,000 because they (“Tanchi”— employer of [Atty. Paña])
“volunteered” only P10,000; that he does not know what happened to the
case pending with Justice Melo; that he did not
actually see [Atty. Gatcho] and Calayag
receive the P450,000 x x x
but the fact was admitted to him by [Calayag] and
related to him by [Atty. Paña] in the presence of [Atty.
Besonaya].
As to
whether Justice Barrios rendered a favorable decision in the case of [Atty. Paña’s] client, Tanchi, [complainant] would initially testify that he did
not know, x x x later on he
would state that he is confused and that there was a favorable decision as
stated in the Comment of [Atty.] Paña x x x and finally, would state that
he had the distinct impression that there was a favorable decision.[20]
Worse,
complainant could not even vouch for the integrity of Atty. Paña’s information, as
he was not certain if Atty. Paña personally dealt
with Atty. Gatcho and Calayag
in the alleged transactions:
ATTY. CORDOVA:
You
know for a fact that [Atty. Gatcho and Calayag] indeed received
the amount of P150,000 from the employer of Atty. Paña?
COMPLAINANT:
That
was the story of [Atty.] Paña. That was the story
that they did not receive P150,000. but they
demanded P150,000 but only the P10,000
was volunteered by Tanchi.
x x x
x
Q: Was
Atty. Paña there when [Calayag]
and Atty. Gatcho demanded this P150,000 from the employer of Atty. Paña?
A: That
was the story of [Atty.] Paña that they demanded P150,000
for the favorable resolution.
Q: So you
do not know if Atty. Paña was indeed there when these
two respondents demanded this P150,000?
x x x x
A: That I
don’t know, Your Honor.[21]
Complainant
claims that Atty.
Paña threatened him to keep silent about the pay-off,
otherwise she would show Justice Abesamis the TSN of
the adoption case where complainant appeared as counsel while employed as a
court attorney. Complainant submits as evidence several text messages sent from
Atty. Paña’s cellular phone to his.[22] To our mind, the messages may be proof that
complainant and Atty. Paña were in a bitter
disagreement, but not necessarily
under the circumstances of blackmail described by complainant. This theory of blackmail leaves one wondering why Atty. Paña eventually decided to give Justice Abesamis
a copy of the TSN, when by such act, Atty. Paña instead gave complainant a reason to retaliate, thus:
JUSTICE SUNDIAM:
Now, since [you had] not yet told Justice Abesamis about the
pay- off” why did she, Atty. Paña, give the TSN
ahead to Justice Abesamis?
x x x x
COMPLAINANT:
I
cannot speak for Atty. Paña. But all I can say is
that, [Atty.] Paña took
it against me. x x x that
there was failure on my part to dissuade
Atty. Besonaya. But as to her other motive in giving
the TSN to Justice Abesamis, I cannot speak for her.[23]
It
further appears that complainant himself was not convinced of the solidness of
his case. Asked during cross-examination if he entertained the thought of
informing the concerned incumbent justices of the pay-off, complainant’s answers revealed his own uncertainty:
JUSTICE SUNDIAM:
So,
in short, it never occurred to you to see these two Justices. Please answer the question?
COMPLAINANT:
Actually
Your Honor, I was afraid to do such an action.
Q: You were afraid to do it?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. PEREZ:
Why
were you afraid to do it?
A: You know I might even be (pause) Justice Barrios, for one,
may ask me, who is my source or
what is my source. So, it would be hard
on my part to start up a controversy without proof.
Q: What proof do you have now if you
didn’t
have any proof Mr. Witness, what proof do you have now to start a whole, big, controversy?
A: We are just starting so, I think in the process, I think
there will be pieces of evidence to
be presented that I hope would prove the allegations
of my complaint.
Q: So you are not yet through with your data gathering, yes or
no?
A: What do you mean by data gathering?
Q: With your gathering of pieces of evidence?
A: I will be presenting witnesses on my behalf. x x x[24]
Thus, upon learning of his termination, complainant “decided to seek an audience” with Justice Garcia, but only so that Justice Garcia could “somehow intervene on [his] behalf that instead [he] would be allowed to resign instead of being terminated x x x.” Complainant feared the forfeiture of “the monetary value of [his] leave credits” if terminated for cause.[25]
Finally,
complainant failed to adduce evidence that Atty. Gatcho
obtained a copy of the decision
in CA-G.R. SP
No. 49363, on the day of its promulgation, for
an unlawful reason.
Testimony of Atty. Pascual and Atty. Besonaya
fail to bolster complainant’s
allegations
The
affidavit of Atty.
Pascual states that Atty. Paña
sought her help to dissuade Atty. Besonaya from
reporting the pay-off to Justice Barrios. Contrary to the contents of her
affidavit, Atty. Pascual testified on
cross-examination that Atty. Paña made no further
requests from her other than to mend a rift between her and Atty. Besonaya:[26]
ATTY. PEREZ:
And
how upset was Atty. Besonaya?
[ATTY.] PASCUAL:
I
have no idea, Sir, because it was only relayed to me by Atty. Paña when
she was asking me to patch up her friendship with Atty. Besonaya.
x x x x
Q: And
what did Atty. Paña tell you?
A: She
mentioned about [Atty. Besonaya] getting upset about
alleged “pay-off” with Justice
Barrios. She also mentioned the names of Malou and Noel which, that name Noel, I did not even know.
So, I simply did not pay
attention to that because it’s a – (pause) all the while
I thought it was a simple quarrel among friends.
Q: So, at
first you didn’t believe. “Yes” or “No”?
A: If I
did not believe the story?
Q: What
[Atty. Paña] told you?
A: From the level of voice of Atty. Paña, I could sense that there was really a rift between her and Atty. Besonaya, but regarding “pay- off,” I did not bother myself with that “pay-off.” [27]
Q: Madam
Witness, you stated a while ago that Atty. Paña
called you only for the purpose of
asking your help in patching up her differences
with Atty. Besonaya, is that correct?
A: Are you
referring to that particular day?
ATTY. PEREZ:
Yes.
[ATTY.] PASCUAL:
Yes,
sir.
Q: Now, in
your affidavit, paragraph 4 “While I called [Atty. Besonaya] and informed her about
[Atty. Paña’s] request, I made no effort to dissuade her.” What do
you mean by this?
A: I made
no effort to dissuade her?
ATTY. PEREZ:
Yes.
A: I made
no effort to talk to [Atty. Besonaya] regarding-
(pause) dissuading her from
exposing about that “pay-off.”
Q: Why, Madam
Witness, was there a request for you to dissuade Atty. Besonaya from reporting the
alleged “pay-off”?
A: Request
from whom, Sir.
Q: From
Atty. Paña or whoever?
A: She did
not ask me to dissuade [Atty. Besonaya].[28]
While
admitting that she had no personal knowledge of the pay-off, Atty. Besonaya
insists that she witnessed Atty. Paña hand over
the envelope containing P10,000 to Calayag,
which envelope Calayag refused to receive.[29] However, she did not hear the conversation
between Atty. Paña and Calayag[30] and only
learned about the matter of the envelope when Atty. Paña
visited her house sometime in October 2000. Again, we find that Atty. Paña’s statements serve as
the sole basis for Atty. Besonaya’s
allegations:
ATTY. PEREZ:
Now
in Paragraph 11.7 of your statement, the second Paragraph
of 11.7 you stated that “respondent [Atty. Paña]
also confirmed that she was referring to
the same white envelope the contents
of which she showed me one Sunday afternoon during the September 2000 Bar Examinations, containing P1,000-peso denominations, to be the same,” can you tell
this Court how [Atty.] Paña showed you that
envelope?
BESONAYA:
Because
after that Bar Operations around mga past 5 o’clock [Calayag] declined to receive earlier the envelope that afternoon
we proceeded to Tapa
King Restaurant along Estrada corner Taft Avenue,
I was waiting for a friend there and I think that time she was waiting for her brother and she
joked about it, I can recall she said
that “ayaw nila ikain na lang
natin.” And showing to me the white envelope, Sir, with the money.
x x x
x
Q: Now
when Atty. Paña showed you the white envelope as you stated, did Atty. Paña tell you anything else aside from that?
A: No Sir,
she only confirmed it during our second meeting in our house already, last October already.
Q: What
did she confirm during that second meeting?
A: That
the money actually was the P10,000, the P10,000 was refused to be receive (sic) by [Calayag]
then, Sir, on September 2000.[31]
Atty.
Besonaya’s narration of the events does
not prove that the money in the envelope was tendered to Calayag
pursuant to a pay-off arrangement. Neither does it prove that Calayag refused to accept the envelope because, as relayed
by Atty. Paña to Atty. Besonaya,
the amount contained therein was not acceptable to Calayag.
Atty. Paña is administratively liable
The accusations against Atty. Gatcho
and Calayag regarding a pay-off may not have been fully substantiated, but
it is clear to the Court that Atty. Paña’s
reckless statements and actions about an alleged “pay-off” in the judiciary
sparked this entire controversy. Complainant, Atty. Pascual, and Atty. Besonaya all pointed to Atty. Paña
as their source of information on the alleged “pay-off.” It would be difficult to
ascribe to them any evil motive in accusing Atty. Paña,
as she herself admitted their close relationship based on long-term
friendships. The respective testimonies of complainant and Atty. Besonaya regarding the events that transpired in Cafe
Breton correspond perfectly. In the face of these evidence, Atty. Paña’s claim that complainant
was merely “creating intrigues” among the parties rings hollow.
If
lawyers commit a misconduct that would put their moral character in serious
doubt, then the court is justified in suspending or removing them from the
office of attorney.[32] The evidence in this case shows failure on the part
of Atty. Paña to comply with the exacting standards
of good moral character required of members of the Bar. Atty. Paña’s reckless statements on
alleged schemes of corruption serve only to tarnish the image of the legal
profession and of public office.
Atty. Gatcho filed petitions
for commission
as notary public while employed as court attorney
In the course
of the hearings, complainant presented copies of petitions filed by Atty. Gatcho for commission as notary public in the cities of Mandaluyong and Makati, dated 3
April 2000 and 7 February 2003, respectively. Atty. Gatcho
asserts that he filed the petitions only because he was “planning to engage in
private practice” upon separation from government service.[33] These petitions do not form part of the records.
Memorandum
Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department permits employees of government
offices to “engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession x x x outside office hours.”[34] However, we declared in an En Banc resolution
dated 1 October 1987 that —
x x x
[the memorandum circular] x x x
[is] not applicable to officials or employees of the courts considering the
express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of their work which
requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and
responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary.[35]
Atty.
Gatcho should have known that as a government
lawyer, he was prohibited from engaging in notarial
practice, or in any form of private legal practice for that matter. Atty. Gatcho cannot now feign ignorance or good faith, as he did
not seek to exculpate himself by providing an explanation for his error. Atty. Gatcho’s filing of the petition for commission, while
not an actual engagement in the practice of law, appears as a furtive attempt
to evade the prohibition.
Complainant engaged in unauthorized
private practice
While
complainant must have intended to assume the role of whistle-blower in filing
this case, we cannot disregard complainant’s admission that he appeared in
court as counsel and received P2,000 in appearance fees when he was employed
as court attorney.[36]
Appearing in court on behalf of a party litigant falls within the scope of the
phrase “practice of law.” We held in Cayetano
v. Monsod that —
To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service,
which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill.[37]
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
engaging in the private practice of profession, when unauthorized, is
classified as a light offense punishable by reprimand.[38]
Resignation or removal not a bar
to a finding of administrative liability
The
fact that complainant and Atty. Gatcho are no longer
employed at the Court of Appeals, and claim to have shifted to private
practice, does not preclude the Court from making a pronouncement as to their
administrative liability for acts committed by them while in government
service. Cessation from office of a respondent by resignation or retirement
does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint filed while he or
she was still in the service nor does it render the administrative
case moot and academic.[39]
The complaint in this case was filed on 28 February 2003, before Atty. Gatcho resigned. The jurisdiction that the Court acquired
at the time of the filing of the complaint is retained until the case is
finally resolved. However, while they deserve a more severe penalty, like
suspension from office, they can only now be admonished since they are no
longer in the service.
WHEREFORE,
we find Atty. Edna S. Paña guilty of gross
misconduct and accordingly SUSPEND her from the practice of law for
three (3) months effective upon finality of this Decision. For engaging in the
unauthorized private practice of law, we ADMONISH Atty. Victoriano S. Muring, Jr., Court
Attorney IV. For filing a petition for commission as notary public while
employed in the Judiciary, we also ADMONISH Atty. Manuel T. Gatcho, Court Attorney V. They are STERNLY WARNED
that repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more
severe sanction.
We
DISMISS the administrative complaint against Nelpa
Lota-Calayag, Executive Assistant V, for lack
of merit.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, to be appended to the personal records of Paña, Muring, and Gatcho, as attorneys;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts of the country.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
REYNATO S. PUNOAssociate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-16.
[2] Id. at 232-234.
[3] Id. at 50-51.
[4] Id. at 67-69.
[5] Id. at 54-55.
[6] Id. at 56.
[7] Id. at 83-98.
[8] Id. at 90-91.
[9] Id. at 101-110.
[10] Id. at 104-107.
[11] Id. at 203.
[12] Id. at 189-198.
[13] Id. at 189.
[14] Report, p. 20.
[15] Id. at 21.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at 3-4.
[18] Navarro v. Cerezo, A.M. No. P-05-1962, 17 February 2005, 451 SCRA 626, 629.
[19]
[20] Report, pp. 6-7.
[21] TSN, 10 November 2003, pp. 44-46.
[22] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[23] TSN, 13 November 2003, pp. 29-32.
[24] TSN, 10 November 2003, pp. 121-122.
[25] TSN, 13 November 2003, p. 59.
[26] TSN, 19 November 2003, pp. 74-75.
[27] Id. at 75-76, 78-79.
[28] Id. at 81.
[29] TSN, 5 December 2003, p. 81.
[30] Id. at 96.
[31] Id. at 73-74.
[32] In re Sotto, 38 Phil. 532 (1918).
[33] TSN, 12 May 2004, pp. 29-30.
[34] Memorandum Circular No. 17 dated 4 September 1986 issued by the Executive Department pursuant to Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
[35] Administrative Circular No. 5 issued by Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan on 4 October 1988. Supreme Court Circulars, Part I, p. 117.
[36] TSN, 10 November 2003, pp. 64-69.
[37] G.R. No. 100113, 03 September 1991, 201 SCRA 210, 214.
[38] Section 52, Rule IV. Resolution No. 991936 of the Civil Service Commission, effective 26 September 1999.
[39] Baquerfo v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-05-1974, 6 April 2005, 455 SCRA 13.