ROBERT
FRANCIS F. MARONILLA, ADM. CASE
No. 6973
and ROMMEL F.
MARONILLA,
Represented by ATTY.
RAMON M.
MARONILLA,
Complainants, Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus
- Chairman,
CARPIO,
CARPIO-MORALES, and
TINGA, JJ.
ATTYS. EFREN N. JORDA
and IDA MAY J. LA’O,
Respondents. Promulgated:
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
The present matter stemmed from a fracas within the
University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman campus, and the subsequent attempts
by the University disciplinary authorities to impose what had been deemed as
the proper sanctions. The issue is whether respondents, members of the U.P.
Diliman Legal Office, stepped out of
bounds when they appealed to the University president to reconsider the exoneration
by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal of the sons of the complainant.
The facts as culled from the records of the case follows:
On
A preliminary inquiry was conducted by herein respondent
Atty. Efren N. Jorda (Jorda), University Legal Counsel,[4]
on
A formal investigation before the UP Student Disciplinary
Tribunal (SDT) of the case commenced on
“WHEREFORE,
premises considered, We find that the complaint against ROBERT FRANCIS MARONILLA y Fong,
ROMMEL MARONILLA y Fong and MARLON RILLO y De Castro should be DISMISSED for lack of
substantial evidence. On the other hand, the other Respondents, namely:
1. THEDDEUS TESORO y De
2.
LEMUEL NARCISE y Marquez;
3.
SHERWIN DE LEON y Felix;
4.
CESAR BALUYUT y Motocmull; and
5.
RICHARD SANCHEZ;
are
hereby found GUILTY of violating Rule 1, Section 1, paragraph A-2 of the
Rules. The penalty of EXPULSION
is hereby recommended as provided for by the Rules.[7]
(Emphasis supplied.)
The SDT found Ocampo a credible witness. When asked to
identify his attackers, he was clear and precise in recognizing and singling
out the participants in the incident among the line-up as those members of the
rival fraternity. However, he was not able to identify Marlon Rillo because
according to Ocampo, Rillo had a different look
during the incident.[8]
Ocampo also hesitated in the identification of Robert Francis and Rommel
Maronilla (Maronilla brothers) for the reason that they are twins, thereby
making positive identification difficult.[9]
The SDT further held that the defenses of the assailants,
all of which were alibis, cannot be accepted by the tribunal. The SDT held that
alibi, as the weakest defense, must yield when there is positive
identification.[10]
Jorda subsequently moved for partial reconsideration of the
decision of the SDT before the UP Office of the President with respect to the
dismissal of the case against the Maronilla brothers. He asserted that the
positive identification of the Maronilla brothers was firmly and clearly
established by Ocampo but he failed to give their correct names or, put in
another way, Ocampo did not know which of the two was Rommel or Robert Francis.[11]
Furthermore, Jorda thereafter prepared an Extended
Manifestation praying that the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the SDT
decision be considered as an appeal and the modification of the SDT decision
holding that the Maronilla brothers be equally held liable as the rest of
respondents in the SDT case.[12]
The Extended Manifestation was noted by herein respondent Atty. Ida May J. La’o
(La’o), the chief legal officer of the UP Diliman Legal Office.
On 13 September 2004, Atty. Ramon M. Maronilla (Maronilla),
the father of the Maronilla brothers, representing his sons, filed a
complaint-affidavit[13]
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondents Jorda
and La’o for violating Rule 12.04[14]
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing an appeal or motion for
reconsideration in a disciplinary action that did not provide for such
procedure. He also averred that respondents were obviously biased and partial
and had the intention of inflicting harm and undue injury to his sons when they
filed the appeal to the UP Office of the President. Thus, in effect, their acts
took the form of persecution rather than prosecution.[15]
In an Order dated
On
On
On
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The IBP pertinently noted that there was no right to appeal
from the decisions of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal.
It
is clear under the Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other Student Organization
(“Rules”) of the UP, that the right of appeal is not afforded to the University
or the University Prosecutors when the recommendation of the SDT is to dismiss
the complaint against the respondent students. No such remedy, relief or
recourse exists in the rules. This was categorically stated in the Decision
of UP President Nemenzo.[21]
(Emphasis in the original.)
Without any express provision of the law, an appeal cannot
be undertaken as the same is not one of the rights of the litigants. Appeal is
more of a privilege given to a party by the laws or procedures. It is not a
natural right or a part of due process.[22]
This Court cannot be persuaded by the reasons of respondents that they merely wanted to offer inputs to the UP President in rendering what they think is the right adjudication of the disciplinary case. As correctly held by the IBP investigating commissioner:
Respondent’s
claim that his duty to provide “inputs” is misplaced and wrong. The duty to give
“inputs” lies with the SDT and not with Respondent. His role was to prosecute the case, and that role
ended when the SDT finished its hearings and investigation and submitted its
report and findings. After the SDT has submitted its Decision, there is nothing
more to prosecute as the investigation has finished. Respondent cannot unilaterally duplicate or supplant the recommendatory
powers of the SDT by making his own “inputs” to the President of UP without
being expressly authorized.[23]
(Emphasis in the original.)
The Court likewise agrees with the IBP that the evidence submitted is not sufficient to levy sanction of La’o. Only Jorda prepared and signed the offending Motion for Reconsideration which ultimately became the appeal in the disciplinary case before President Nemenzo. While La’o’s signature appears on the Extended Manifestation, the annotation “Noted” appears above the said signature, thus presumably indicating that she did not directly prepare the said document. Evidently, it cannot be said outright that she shared the vigor of Jorda in pursuing the erroneous appeal, and for lack of such evidence indubitably evincing a shared intent with Jorda, her exoneration is the prudent course of action.
We recognize that Jorda breached a procedural rule no higher
than the Revised Rules and Regulations
Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other Student Organizations of UP.
Still, it must be remembered that Jorda as a functionary of a state university
is obliged to adhere to the due process clause of the Constitution, the UP being an instrumentality of the State. He
is bound to respect those enactments that afford benefit or relief to those
under pain of sanction. As an officer of the law, he is expected to be circumspect
in acting within the boundaries of his duties and responsibilities.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court APPROVES the
recommendations of the Integrated Bar of
the
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
[5]The formal charge reads:
“That on or about
1.) ROBERT FRANCIS MARONILLA y Fong (UP Student No. 98-29114), a student of the C.S.S.P., UP
Diliman,
2.) ROMMEL MARONILLA y
Fong (UP Student No. 98-27181), a student of the I.L.S., UP Diliman,
3.) THEDDEUS TESORO y
De
4.) LEMUEL NARCISE y
Marquez (UP Student No. 98-18159), a student of C.H.K., UP Diliman,
5.) MARLON RILLO y De
Castro (UP Student No. 97-21435), a student of C.A.L., UP Diliman,
6.) SHERWIN DE LEON y
Felix (UP Student No. 98-66562), a student of the C.S., UP Diliman,
7.) CESAR BALUYUT y
Motocmull (UP Student No. 98-11079), a student of C.S.S.P., UP Diliman,
8.) RICHARD SANCHEZ;
9.) A JOHN DOE a.k.a. “AJ”
alighting from three (3) cars and armed with lead/steel
pipes, suddenly attacked complaining witness Ferdinand G. Ocampo near Palma
Hall who was then walking with a lady friend, and as Ocampo ran toward Palma
Hall for safety, these attackers threw their lead/steel pipes at him two of
which hit his left foot and right arm; that said act is in violation of Rule I,
Section 1, paragraphs (A-2) and (E) of the Rules and Regulations Governing
Fraternities, Sororities and other Student Organizations.” Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[14]Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
[16]