TOMAS
G. TAN & CST ENTER- G.R.
No. 173940
PRISES
INC., represented by (Formerly
CBD Case No. 02-967)
NELSON G. TAN,
Petitioners, Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
-
versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
IBP
COMMISSION ON BAR
DISCIPLINE and ATTY. JAIME
Promulgated:
N. SORIANO,
Respondents. September 5, 2006
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
This
petition stemmed from a pending disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of
the
Sometime in January of 2002, petitioner
Tomas G. Tan (petitioner Tan), stockholder and director of co-petitioner CST Enterprises, Inc. (CST),
discovered that two parcels of land owned by the corporation were used to
obtain loans from Philippine Business Bank (PBB), with the real estate mortgage
annotated at the back of the titles covering the properties. Upon verification, he learned that a certain
John Dennis Chua, representing CST, mortgaged the properties. Chua was purportedly authorized by the Board
of Directors of the corporation as shown by the Corporate Secretary’s
Certificate dated
On
Petitioners also filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati a civil case docketed as Civil Case No. 02-299 and
captioned as one for “Declaration of Unenforceability of Promissory Notes and
Mortgage, Nullity of Secretary’s Certificate, Injunction,” Damages, etc. with Prayer for Issuance of
TRO/ Preliminary Injunction, against respondent,
Atty. Stephen Z. Taala and PBB, along
with other persons.[3]
In the course of the proceedings in
the said civil case, petitioners claim to have gathered more information and seen
the “extent of the plot or machinations” of respondent and the participation of
other individuals, including Atty. Taala who was the Assistant Vice President
for Legal Services of PBB.[4] Atty.
Taala had testified in Civil Case No. 02-299 that Felipe Chua personally
delivered to him CST’s titles to the mortgaged lots and that Felipe Chua assured
him that respondent is the Corporate Secretary of CST.[5] Thus, CST’s loan application was recommended
for favorable consideration.
On
Petitioners sought reconsideration of
the order, but the Commission denied the motion, ruling that the Commission
cannot make a premature finding on and/or investigation of the alleged acts of
Atty. Taala since the same are the subject of a pending civil case. Anent the alleged untruthful statements of respondent,
the Commission ruled that there is no need to amend the complaint since the
said statements may be refuted in the ensuing proceedings in the case.[8]
Assailing
the denial of the motion for the admission of the Amended/Supplemental
Complaint, petitioners filed before this Court a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, wherein they impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission.
Petitioners submit that respondent and
Atty. Taala through false testimonies intend to bind CST to the spurious loans
and real estate mortgage to its damage and prejudice.[9] They
claim that the denial to admit the Amended/Supplemental Complaint would have
the effect of preventing petitioners from filing a new complaint against respondent
along with Atty. Taala for their conspiratorial illegal acts involving the same
loan transactions, as any judgment of the Commission on the original complaint
may serve as res judicata to bar judgment on the other acts complained
of in the Amended/Supplemental Complaint.[10] Likewise, limiting the facts and issues to
those defined in the original complaint would make respondent answerable only for the less
serious charges subject of the original complaint but not for the graver charges in the Amended/Supplemental Complaint
regarding respondent’s untruthful allegations.[11]
In
addition, petitioners claim that respondent’s allegations in his Verified
Answer are untruthful and perjurious as he knowingly cited untruthful
testimonies and affidavits from the records of the civil case with the RTC of
Makati. One such untruthful testimony is
that of Atty. Taala to the effect that Felipe Chua personally delivered the
original titles of the Muntinlupa properties to PBB in compliance with the loan
requirements.[12] According to petitioners, Atty. Taala’s twin claims that he met with
Felipe Chua on 05 April 2001 and that Felipe Chua submitted the Secretary’s
Certificate on the same date are untruthful since Felipe was out of the country
on the said date. Likewise, Felipe Chua
could not have attended the meeting with respondent in January 2001 because he
was also abroad at that time.[13]
Finally, petitioners aver that the
proceeds of the spurious loans amounting to P91.1 Million Pesos covered
by the real estate mortgage on CST’s real estate properties were funneled to
the Mabuhay Sugar Central, Inc., a corporation where respondent is the incorporator, stockholder and President.[14]
Petitioners thus pray of this Court to
set aside the Commission’s order denying admission of the Amended/Supplemental
Complaint, or in the alternative, allow petitioner to file a new complaint
against respondent and Atty. Taala based on the same loan transactions.[15]
In his Comment[16]
before the Court, respondent claims that petitioners breached the rule that
proceedings against attorneys should be kept private and confidential, when the
latter disclosed in Civil Case No. 02-299 the contents of his Verified Answer
filed before the Commission, quoting almost verbatim said contents. This
had the effect of announcing to the whole world the pending disbarment case, respondent
stresses, and is meant to harass and vex him, as well as to damage his
reputation even before a final verdict is reached by the Commission. Respondent questions petitioners’ motive in
not filing a separate case before the IBP against Atty. Taala and accordingly
having him tried separately. Finally, respondent
posits that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioner’s motion to amend its complaint since the nullity or regularity of
the mortgage loan in CST’s name is not an issue in the administrative case
against him.
The crux of the petition is whether the Commission committed
grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner’s Amended/Supplemental
Complaint.
The
Commission did not. The petition must be
dismissed.
Petitioners have filed Civil Case No.
02-299, seeking the declaration of unenforceability of promissory notes and
mortgage, nullity of secretary’s certificate, injunction, damages, and the
issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. In the said case, petitioners allege that the
loans contracted by CST from PBB were not
sanctioned nor ratified by the CST Board of Directors and/ or stockholders, but
were only facilitated by respondent and Atty. Taala, as well as by other
persons through the use of the spurious Secretary’s Certificate. Likewise pending is another case against
respondent and John Dennis Chua, et al.
for estafa through falsification of public documents, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 04-3776 of the RTC of Makati which appears to involve the same allegedly unauthorized
mortgage.[17]
The Court notes that petitioners are
seeking similar, if not identical, reliefs from the regular courts and the
Commission. Thus, in addition to the prayer to disbar respondent
and Atty. Taala, petitioners implore the Commission to make a finding that
respondent lawyers be found liable for using untruthful statements under oath,
conspiracy to commit estafa, employing deceit and other manipulative acts as
well as fraud, and falsification of public documents ─charges which are included in his
allegations in the civil and criminal cases.
Obviously, the Commission is not
empowered to resolve matters which are pending resolution by the regular courts
to which jurisdiction properly pertains.
The IBP, particularly the Commission on Bar Discipline, is merely tasked
to investigate and make recommendations on complaints for disbarment,
suspension and discipline of lawyers. It
is not a regular court and thus is not endowed with the power to investigate
and resolve judicial matters pending before the regular courts.
To cite a specific vital aspect. In the proposed Amended/Supplemental Complaint,
petitioners seek to hold respondent administratively liable for his “untruthful
and perjurious” statements in his Verified Answer in the administrative case. Precisely, however, the truth or falsity of
said statements are still to be litigated in the civil case.
Disbarment proceedings are sui
generis, they belong to a class of their own, and are distinct from that of
civil or criminal actions.[18] To be sure, a finding of liability in a civil
case or a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary for finding a member
of the bar guilty in an administrative proceeding. However, in the instant case, the civil and
criminal cases involving the acts referred to in the proposed amended/supplemental
complaint are still pending adjudication before the regular courts. Prudence dictates that the action of the Commission
related to the proposed amended/supplemental complaint in the administrative
case be sustained in order to avoid contradictory findings in that case and in
the court cases.[19]
The call for judiciousness stems from
the need to ensure the smooth and orderly disposition of the related cases
pending before the courts and the Commission and avert conflict in the rulings
in the bar discipline case and in the judicial cases. Preemption of the regular courts by an
administrative case is a worrisome spectacle.
Now we turn to a significant
sidelight.
Respondent
charges petitioners with divulging what is essentially confidential information,
which is a violation of Section 18,[20]
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. He
alleges that petitioners even made the basis of his amended complaint in the
civil case the allegations contained in respondent’s Verified Answer before the
Commission.
A review of the records disclose that
petitioners lifted and cited most of the amendatory averments in respondent’s Verified
Answer in the administrative case as the core of their Amended Complaint in the
civil case. In fact, petitioners even
identified the Verified Answer and the disbarment proceedings itself as the
sources of the averments in the Amended Complaint before the trial court, thus:
47.
On
48. The averments of Defendant Soriano in his Verified Answer (“Soriano Verified Answer” for brevity) dated September 27, 2002 filed in said disbarment case, as well as the pertinent papers and earlier testimonies in this case and the results of the ongoing investigation and inquiries of Plaintiff Tan, further reveal: x x x.[21]
Disciplinary
proceedings against a lawyer are private and confidential until its final
determination.[22] The confidential nature of the proceedings
has a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i) to enable the
court and the investigator to make the investigation free from any extraneous
influence or interference; (ii) to protect the
personal and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges
of disgruntled, vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting
the publication of such charges pending their resolution; and (iii) to deter
the press from publishing the charges or proceedings based thereon.[23]
Petitioners
had in effect announced to the world the pending disbarment case against respondent. Not only did they disclose the ongoing
proceedings, they also divulged most, if not all of the contents of
respondent’s Verified Answer. Clearly,
petitioners’ acts impinged on the confidential nature of the disbarment
proceedings against Atty. Soriano.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners are REMINDED to preserve the
confidentiality of the administrative proceedings. The IBP is ordered to resume its hearings in
CBD No. 02-267 consistently with this resolution. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[3]IBP
records, Vol. VI, pp. 137-178. Civil Case No. 02-299 was raffled to Branch 142
of the RTC,
[5]
[9]Rollo, p. 8.
[13]
[17]IBP
records, Vol. VI, pp. 546-555. Attached
to petitioner’s Provisional Position
Paper are copies of John Dennis Chua’s Counter ─Affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit,
which form part of the records of
Criminal Case No. 04-3776, entitled “People of the
[20]Sec.
18. Confidentiality- Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and
confidential. However, the final order
of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decision in other cases.
[22]Supra
note 21.