AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., A.C. No. 4517
Complainant,
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA
and
GARCIA, JJ.
ATTYS. VITALIANO C. FABROS
and PACIFICO S. PAAS,
Respondents. Promulgated:
September 11, 2006
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
A complaint for disbarment was filed
against Attys. Vitaliano C. Fabros
and Pacifico S. Paas by
Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. for “unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct” in relation to the discharge of their duties
as chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the provincial board of canvassers,
Province of Isabela (PBC-Isabela)
in the 1995 elections.
Complainant
alleged that:
xxx
xxx xxx
8. Among the duties of the [PBC-Isabela] was to canvass the results of the elections from the various municipalities and component cities of the Province of Isabela and submit the Provincial Certificate of Canvass to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). This Provincial Certificate of Canvass was to be submitted to the COMELEC together with its supporting Statement
of Votes per
Municipality for the Province of Isabela, and as
required by law, these documents were prepared under the control and
supervision of the [PBC-Isabela] of which herein respondents
are officials.
9.
In fact, with respect to the Provincial Certificate of
Canvass of Isabela, respondents were required to
certify under oath that they duly canvassed the votes cast for each candidate
for Senator in the election held on May 8, 1995. And with respect to the Statement of Votes
per Municipality, they were required to
certify that each entry made is true and correct.
xxx xxx xxx
11.
It would appear, however, that the Statement of Votes
per Municipality (annex “B”) prepared and certified to be true and correct by
herein respondents was actually a fraudulent statement which had been altered
and which contain false and untrue entries.
By comparing the said statements with the Municipal/City Certificates of
Canvass of some of the municipalities and component cities for the Province of Isabela, it is clearly apparent that in nine (9)
municipalities and one (1) city of the said province, the votes of candidates Enrile, Honasan and Mitra were padded and increased by some 27,755, 10,000 and
7,000, respectively….
xxx xxx xxx
13.
The anomalous, irregular and illegal padding of the
votes in the Provincial Certificate of Canvass for the Province of Isabela cannot be attributed [to] mere computation or
recording error, but was ostensibly the result of a premeditated scheme
knowingly implemented by herein respondents.
14.
The respondents, chairman and vice chairman of the [PBC-Isabela], willfully, feloniously, unethically and in wanton
and reckless regard of the duties and responsibilities reposed upon them by
virtue of their official positions, signed the Provincial Certificate of
Canvass (annex “A”) and the Statement of Votes per Municipality (annex “B”) for
the Province of Isabela, well aware that the same
contained false statements which has altered the results of the senatorial
elections in said province. Their
submission of these falsified documents to the COMELEC is an act constituting a
gross violation of the Omnibus Election Code and existing penal laws, and a
serious breach of public trust and of their oaths as duly licensed members of
the Philippine Bar.
15. For under section 27 of R.A. 6646 it is provided that any member of the board of canvasser who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate in any election shall be guilty of [an] election offense.
16.
And, under provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. xxx xxx xxx.[1]
(Emphasis ours)
In his comment, respondent Fabros reproduced the counter-affidavit he filed with the
COMELEC-Manila since the issues raised in the complaint were identical to those
brought before the Commission. He denied
committing any act which violated his oath as a lawyer. Specifically, he stated
that: (1) he neither consented nor allowed any member of PBC-Isabela to increase the votes of Senators Enrile, Honasan and Mitra; (2) the canvassing was done in public view; (3) he
faithfully read the votes as reflected in the municipal/city certificates of
canvass, repeating the same twice or thrice and (4) the canvassing proceeded in
an orderly manner after counsels and watchers were given the chance to examine
the certificates of canvass.[2]
Aside
from substantially echoing the statements of Fabros,
respondent Paas alleged that he was in no position to
manipulate the figures since Fabros did the reading
throughout the canvass, while he attended to maintaining the integrity of the
envelopes containing the statement of votes.
Both attributed to human fatigue or simple negligence any error in the
figures since the board and its staff allegedly worked continuously to finish
the canvassing within 72 hours as directed.[3] Paas claimed that if there were figures in the certificates
of canvass which did not match the statement of votes prepared by the PBC, he
honestly believed that this was due to human fatigue.[4] He
alleged that, if at all, he could only be faulted for failing to see for
himself if the reading by Fabros of the number of
votes and the tabulation thereof faithfully reflected the figures in the PBC’s copy of the election returns.
Both respondents do not, however,
deny that they authenticated the provincial certificate of canvass and signed
the statement of votes as “true and correct.” Their only excuse for any discrepancy was
their alleged reliance on the documents prepared by the secretary of PBC-Isabela, Olympia Marquez.
The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner George Briones heard the case on January 20, 1997.[5] By
agreement of the parties, the Investigating Commissioner ordered the parties to
submit simultaneous verified position papers with the affidavits of their
witnesses.[6] On June 21, 2003, the IBP board of governors
issued a resolution adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Respondents were found
guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
were penalized with a fine of P10,000 each, with a warning that a
violation on similar grounds will be dealt with more severely.
Based
on the evidence presented, we find respondents guilty of misconduct. The
records reflect, and respondents admit, the discrepancy between the questioned
certificate of canvass and the statement of votes of the Province of Isabela in the 1995 elections. While there was no question
that the municipal/city certificates of canvass were not tampered with, the
tabulation of the figures on the statement of votes was anomalous. For this, respondents were responsible.[7]
As
chairman and vice-chairman of PBC-Isabela,
respectively, respondents were mandated to receive the municipal/city
certificates of canvass, and to canvass them for the votes of the members of
the Senate,
among others.[8] They were also required to determine the
provisional total votes of each candidate as of each adjournment. On final
adjournment, they were tasked to prepare a statement of votes with a
certification of the same as official.[9] In addition, they prepared the provincial
certificate of canvass (in which the padded figures were discovered) with the
certification under oath as public officers that the entries were true and
correct.[10]
More
than simply affixing their signatures for the purpose of identifying the
documents, respondents signed the documents certifying (and vouching) for the
correctness and accuracy of their contents. Even if they allegedly had no
participation in the misdeed, they nevertheless remained responsible for it as
officials of PBC-Isabela. Respondents must bear the
consequences of any misstatement or falsehood arising from such certification.[11] They
cannot evade responsibility by pointing to other persons who supposedly
prepared the documents in question.[12] They had the opportunity to check, as they
should have checked, the accuracy of the figures they were certifying to.[13] By
certifying to false figures, they committed misconduct subject to disciplinary
action.[14] In
fact, by invoking the defenses of honest mistake, oversight due to fatigue,
even simple negligence, respondents virtually admitted the existence of the discrepancies
in the number of votes reflected in the questioned documents.[15]
As public officers, respondents
failed to live up to the high degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence and skill required of them.[16] As
lawyers, they were found to have engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct.[17] They
also violated their oath as officers of the court
to foist no falsehood on anyone. Furthermore,
by express provision of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
avoidance of such conduct is demanded of them as lawyers in the government
service:
CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
As lawyers in the government service,
respondents were under an even greater obligation to observe the basic tenets
of the legal profession because public office is a public trust.[18]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Atty. Vitaliano C. Fabros and Atty. Pacifico S. Paas GUILTY of
misconduct and imposes on them a FINE in the amount of P10,000
each, with a WARNING that the commission in the future of a similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this resolution be
furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and entered in the records of respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice
[1] Complaint, rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 2-5.
[2] Compliance, id., Vol. 1, pp. 30-31; Counter Affidavit, id., Vol. 1, pp. 32-33.
[3] Counter Affidavit, id., Vol. 1, p. 32.
[4] Id., p. 33.
[5] IBP-CBD Order, id., Vol. 2, p. 4.
[6] At that time, a COMELEC investigation (E.O. Case No. 95-408) was also pending against respondents along with other election officials for violation of Sec. 27(b), RA 6646. IBP-CBD TSN, pp. 12-13, id., Vol. 3.
[7] Id., p. 22.
[8] Position Paper, id., Vol. 2, pp. 12-13. See COMELEC Resolution No. 2756 (January 17, 1997).
[9] Position Paper, id., Vol. 2, p. 13. See Sec. 23 (f)(g), COMELEC Resolution No. 2756.
[10] Position Paper, id., Vol. 2, p. 13. See Sec. 42, COMELEC Resolution No. 2756.
[11] Report and Recommendation, id., Vol. 3.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Pimentel v. COMELEC, 382 Phil. 75, 90 (2000).
[16] Sec. 4(b), Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, RA 6713.
[17] Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
[18] Pimentel, Sr. v. Llorente, A.C. No. 4680, 29 August 2000, 339 SCRA 154.