EN BANC
|
RE:
COMPLAINTS OF MRS. MILAGROS LEE AND SAMANTHA LEE AGAINST ATTY. GIL LUISITO R.
CAPITO. |
A.M. No. 2008-19-SC
Present: CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 27, 2010
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito
(respondent), Court Attorney IV at the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT), was
charged with grave misconduct and willful failure to pay just debts by Milagros
Lee (Milagros) and her daughter Samantha Lee.
Atty. Eden T. Candelaria (Atty. Candelaria), Deputy Clerk of Court and
Chief Administrative Officer, in her
Mrs.
Milagros Lee alleged that sometime in March 2008, Atty. Capito was introduced
to her by neighbors Ma. Cecilia and Ferdinand De Guzman as she needs a lawyer
to file a claim for financial support for her and her children against her
husband who is in
Mrs. Lee again encountered Atty. Capito in the third week of April 2008 when Ms. De Guzman (a.k.a. Michelle) picked up Mrs. Lee in her house and told her that Atty. Capito is in their (Michelle[’s]) house and that Mrs. Lee can now consult her problems with Platinum Plans and her claim for support against her husband. The De Guzman spouses made mention to her that Atty. Capito specializes in land cases and that he is connected with Senator Loren Legarda. She came to know also that Atty. Capito is working in the Supreme Court. [Mrs.] Milagros Lee’s marriage contract and other documents were photocopied by Samantha Lee and were given to Atty. Capito for his information.
On
On P7,000.00
and the P4,000.00 was allegedly lent to Atty. Capito.
The following day,
On P10,000 from Mrs.
Lee and promised that he will return the money immediately. Because he saw the
Lees’ kindness, he again borrowed money twice. One was on a date which Mrs. Lee
cannot remember anymore, and another one was on P1,000.00
each. Mrs. Lee alleged that Atty. Capito was in dire need as he has no money
for his daily use. He even asked Mrs. Lee to borrow money for him if she has
some other acquaintance or friend as he had a problem with a case he filed, and
proposed to double the payment. His debt with the complaint allegedly reached
to P16,000[.]
For several times, Mrs. Lee called Atty. Capito in the OCAT through phone, but she received an answer “wala pa” until Mrs. Lee told him to give the exact date when to pay her. Mrs. Lee alleged that Atty. Capito promised to pay her on September 30, 2008. On said date, Mrs. Lee together with her daughter Samantha, went early to the said office but she was told “wala pa.” Mrs. Lee got angry as they needed the money already that is why they came early to see him at his office.[2] (italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
When Milagros finally met respondent
on
Respondent’s side of the case was also
summarized by Atty. Candelaria, viz:
In the investigations conducted by
this Office, Atty[.] Capito denied having stayed in the house of Mrs. Lee.
He claimed that he is not indebted to Mrs. Lee, and stated that he had already
explained everything in his Affidavit of Explanation and Rejoinder. The said
pleadings he filed deny any indebtedness owing to Mrs. Lee as the alleged
indebtedness is not supported by any concrete evidence and that Mrs. Lee is
saying things irrelevant to the complaint not intended to prove the alleged
indebtedness but intended to ruin his honor and reputation. Atty. Capito
alleged that it is the complainants who are in dire need of money as they
even asked him to write a demand letter to the father of Ferdinand De Guzman
for the latter to pay even a small amount of money for their daily living. The
accusations though not true, caused the recurrence of his asthma [rendering] him
unable to report for work for several days[.] He maintains that he is the
administrator of the estate of his father Luis Capito (Former Mayor of
Borongan, P10,000,000.00.[5] (underscoring supplied)
Leonora F. Diño, Executive Assistant
at the OCAT, corroborated complainant Milagros’ account of the
Jose Torres, testifying for complainant, related that he one time drove Milagros
and respondent to Pampanga; and that also at one time, while he was buying
something at the store of Milagros, he saw respondent seated in her sala wearing
a t-shirt.
Torres’ wife Edeta declared that she once
saw respondent knocking at the door of Milagros’ house while she was at the latter’s
store buying some stuff.
Still testifying for Milagros, Toribio
S. Balicot, Computer Operator IV, Records Division, OCAT, declared that respondent’s
cellphone number —
09282037934 — which is
registered in his (Balicot’s) cellfone, is the same number claimed
by Milagros to be respondent’s cellphone number.
Atty. Candelaria thereupon evaluated
the case, parts of which are quoted below:
On the first issue, we give credence to the testimony of complainants that Atty. Capito indeed stayed in their house, vis-à-vis denial asserted by Atty. Capito. Mrs. Lee’s claim was corroborated by her fifteen (15) year old daughter, Ms. Samantha Lee[.]
x x x x
Her testimony affirmed her sworn statement. Her personal account was answered in the first person and not stated as “told to her” or “as instructed to her”. No words of uncertainty was reflected in her testimony of the fact that Atty. Capito stayed in their house. A fifteen (15) year old girl would not usually lie on her personal knowledge of the incident.
Added to these was the text message presented by Mrs. Lee that came from cellphone number 09282037934[.]
x x x x
. . . Mr. Balicot who works in the same office, confirmed in his testimony that cellphone number 09282037934 belongs to Atty. Capito as the same number is registered in his cellphone in the name of Atty. Capito. . . .
Moreover, Mr. Torres testified that he saw Atty. Capito either once or twice in the sala of Mrs. Lee wearing a t-shirt.
On the issue of alleged
indebtedness of P16,000.00, we are not inclined to recommend favorable
action by the Court . . .
. . . The claim was neither raised
and adjudicated in the First
Respondent’s alleged private practice
of law was found unsubstantiated.[8]
Respondent’s utterance of vulgar words[9]
was found “uncalled for and totally abhorring” by Atty. Candelaria given that the
words were uttered in the presence of Milagros’ daughter and in public.[10]
Atty. Candelaria thus concluded that respondent is liable for gross
discourtesy.[11]
The Court finds that respondent is indeed guilty of gross discourtesy
amounting to conduct unbecoming of a court employee. By such violation, respondent failed to live
up to his oath of office as member of the Integrated Bar of the
Gross discourtesy in the course of
official duties is classified as less grave offense under the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[13]
punishable with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the
first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[14]
In recommending the penalty for
respondent, Atty. Candelaria found two mitigating circumstances in his favor: (1)
his 17 years of service to the Court and (2) this being the first time that he
has been administratively charged.
Atty. Candelaria thus gave the
following recommendations:
(a) The case of willful failure to pay just debts be dismissed for failure of complainant to substantiate the charge. However, complainant Mrs. Lee is informed that the Court is not a collection agency. The sum of money representing the respondent’s alleged indebtedness can be claimed before the regular court as a collection suit;
(b) Respondent . . . be suspended for three (3) months without pay for Gross Discourtesy, with a warning that a repetition of the same o[r] similar acts . . . will be dealt with more severely;
(c) For his demeanor which appears to be a violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the same be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.[15] (underscoring supplied)
The Court has consistently been reminding
officials and employees of the Judiciary that their conduct or behavior is circumscribed
with a heavy burden of responsibility which, at all times, should be
characterized by, among other things, strict propriety and decorum. As such,
they should not use abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing and improper language.
Their every act or word should be marked by prudence, restraint, courtesy and
dignity.[16]
It appearing that aside from violating
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent appears to
have also violated Rule 8.01[17]
of the same Code, the recommendation to refer the case to the Office of the Bar
Confidant for appropriate action is in order.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Gil Luisito R.
Capito, Court Attorney IV, Office of the Chief Attorney, is, for Gross
Discourtesy, SU
Let this case be referred to the
Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action, it appearing that
respondent has also violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-15.
[2]
[3] TSN,
[4]
[5] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[6] Vide Testimony of Leonora F. Diño taken
on
[7] Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[8]
[9] Vide Testimony of Leonora Diño,
[10] Rollo, p. 12.
[11]
[12] Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
[13] CSC Resolution No. 99-1936,
[14] Section 52(B)(3).
[15] Rollo, p. 15.
[16] Quilo v. Jundarino, A.M. No. P-09-2644,
[17] A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.