SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9939. November 29, 2021.]
PRESIDING JUDGE CARLO MARTIN R. ALCALA, MTCC, BRANCH 3, ZAMBOANGA CITY, petitionervs. ATTY. ELPIDIO NUVAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9939 (Presiding Judge Carlo Martin R. Alcala, MTCC, Branch 3, Zamboanga City v. Atty. Elpidio Nuval). — Before the Court is an Order 1 dated May 16, 2013 issued by Presiding Judge Carlo Martin R. Alcala (Judge Alcala) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Zamboanga City declaring Atty. Elpidio Nuval (Atty. Nuval) in contempt of court. 2 Upon recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), the Court approved the formal docketing of the order as an administrative case. 3
The Antecedents
On August 22, 2012, Atty. Nuval formally entered his appearance as counsel for the accused, Dante Cabayacruz y Cabrera, in Criminal Case No. 50122 entitled People v. Cabayacruz. 4 He assisted his client in entering a plea of "not guilty" to the charge of Attempted Homicide. 5 At the pre-trial, he committed to present the accused as his lone witness. 6 However, during the initial presentation of evidence, Atty. Nuval orally manifested his intention to withdraw as counsel for the accused. 7 Thus, Judge Alcala required Atty. Nuval to file a formal motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused.
Judge Alcala reiterated the request in the Order dated January 14, 2013. 8 On the January 16, 2013 hearing, Judge Alcala noted Atty. Nuval's failure to comply with the court's Order. 9 Further, due to Atty. Nuval's failure to appear despite notice, he declared the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as having been waived.
On February 19, 2013, Judge Alcala again noted Atty. Nuval's continued lack of the required written motion to withdraw. 10
On March 27, 2013, Judge Alcala ordered Atty. Nuval to show cause in writing why no contempt citation and/or administrative or disciplinary action should be meted out against him for his failure to comply with the court's directive to reduce into writing his withdrawal of appearance as counsel for the accused. 11
On May 9, 2013, Judge Alcala charged Atty. Nuval with indirect contempt for his failure to comply with the show cause directive despite due notice. 12
On May 16, 2013, Judge Alcala issued an Order 13 declaring Atty. Nuval in contempt of court for which he was fined in the amount of P5,000.00 and ordered imprisoned for an indefinite period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, subject to his release upon immediate compliance with the order of the court to submit the motion for withdrawal. 14
Atty. Nuval filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order, but Judge Alcala denied it on May 28, 2013. 15
Atty. Nuval then filed on June 13, 2013 a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City. The RTC granted the prayer for TRO. 16
On June 17, 2013, Judge Alcala furnished the OBC a copy of his Order 17 dated May 16, 2013. 18 The Court on August 14, 2013 then formally docketed the instant case and required Judge Alcala to submit a report and recommendation within 90 days. 19 CAIHTE
On December 26, 2013, the RTC rendered its Decision 20 declaring null and void the order of contempt issued by Judge Alcala dated May 16, 2013. 21 The RTC held that in view of Atty. Nuval's resolve not to pursue his motion for withdrawal, he remained to be the counsel of the accused, who cannot be compelled to file a motion to withdraw. 22
Judge Alcala's Report and Recommendation
On January 12, 2014, Judge Alcala submitted his Report 23 with the recommendation that Atty. Nuval should be suspended from the practice of law for three months with stern warning against the continuation or repetition or both of his misconducts. 24
In the Report, Judge Alcala held the following: Atty. Nuval failed, despite notice, to reduce into writing his oral motion to withdraw as counsel of the accused. Atty. Naval also embarked on a fishing expedition for evidence against him by photocopying cases he handled that would serve as the basis for filing an administrative complaint against him. Atty. Nuval foisted falsehoods in court by making it appear that it was the court that was compelling him to withdraw as counsel for the accused when in fact it was him who made an oral motion for withdrawal as counsel for the accused. There was also an incident where Atty. Nuval took off his shirt while in court. 25
OBC's Report and Recommendation
On July 28, 2015, the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation 26 affirming the three-month suspension recommended by Judge Alcala with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. 27
The OBC found Atty. Nuval's refusal to comply with the orders of the court as a blatant disrespect and willful disobedience to the latter. The OBC Declared that his act of "undressing" in the courtroom in front of the public manifested lack of manners and improper conduct, which may be considered an insult to the court, in spite of the fact that the judge may have allowed it; his decorum inside the court was reprehensible; and his seemingly deliberate refusal to comply with court orders may be construed as an insult to judicial authority. 28
In the Resolution 29 dated August 24, 2015, the Court required Atty. Nuval to file his Comment to the report of Judge Alcala dated January 12, 2014. 30
Atty. Nuval's Compliance Ad Cautelam With Comments
Atty. Nuval, invoking Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, averred that while a proceeding for discipline for attorneys may be taken by the Court motu proprio, it is required that there be a verified complaint stating clearly and concisely the facts complained of which are supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein, and/or by such documents as may substantiate such facts 31 He also argued that the acts complained of by Judge Alcala did not constitute grave misconduct, as contemplated by Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as the judge's order of contempt was declared null and void by the RTC. 32
As for his failure to file a written motion of withdrawal, he asserted that he did not push through with it after his counsel, Atty. Narvaro Belar S. Navarro, explained that the court may deny the motion because it did not have the client's conformé. He further asserted that as lie remained to be the counsel of the accused, the court did not have authority to order him to withdraw from the case. 33
Atty. Nuval also said that his review of court records was made in good faith to substantiate his petition. As for the incident where he took off his shirt, he argued that it happened during a brownout on a hot day and Judge Alcala denied his motion for a resetting, and Judge Alcala allowed him to take off his shirt, which he did, in the presence of other people. The act was, therefore, provoked by Judge Alcala himself. 34
Our Ruling
The Court adopts the recommendation of the OBC.
While the RTC rendered a Decision 35 on December 26, 2013 declaring as null and void the order of contempt issued by Judge Alcala, 36 this, however, does not divest the Court, as guardian of the legal profession, of its bounden duty to discipline attorneys, where correction is appropriate. The Constitution itself vests in the Court the power of control and regulation of the practice of law. 37
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis or belong to a class of their own. 38 Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, these cases do not involve trials of actions or suits but are investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers. They are not intended to inflict punishment. Not being a criminal prosecution, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor. Public interest is the primary objective and the real issue for determination is whether the lawyer is still fit to be allowed the privileges as such. 39
In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon members of the Bar to account for their actuations as officers of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration justice. 40
Without a doubt, the Court has the authority to discipline errant members of the bar. Rule 139-B, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Court motu proprio, so long as the lawyer is given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him or her, among others. 41
Rule 138, Section 30 of the Rules of Court also states that "no attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel."
Here the Court gave full attention to Atty. Nuval's Comment. By his own admissions, however, the Court finds that he committed acts deserving of disciplinary action. DETACa
Atty. Nuval did not file any written motion for withdrawal as counsel for the accused and failed to appear at the scheduled hearings despite several orders from Judge Alcala for him to do so. His explanation that he remained to be counsel for the accused, who cannot be forced by Judge Alcala to withdraw as counsel, was clearly just an afterthought.
To quote Atty. Nuval's Comment:
". . . The court ordered him to reduce in writing his motion to withdraw. When he was in the process of preparing his written withdrawal, he happened to discuss it with his undersigned counsel, Atty. Navarro, and the latter informed him that the same may be denied by the Judge, as he did in a case of a motion made by said counsel, based on the same ground, but the court denied it for the reason that the same did not have the conformity of the client. . .
Clued to such consequence, herein Respondent did not proceed with the withdrawal. And, it is submitted, that it is entirely erroneous for the court to compel him to file his formal withdrawal, as the court does not have the authority to order a counsel to withdraw from a case." 42 (Emphasis supplied)
If Atty. Nuval truly intended to remain as counsel for the accused, he could have easily filed a manifestation to that effect, apprising the court of his intention to withdraw his oral motion. But he never filed any manifestation; neither did he appear in court to defend his client. In fact, his continued failure to appear before the court despite notice led to the accused's waiver of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 43
A lawyer's act of ignoring court orders despite notice violates the Lawyer's Oath and runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 44 Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes, and this deference is underscored by the fact, that willful disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. 45
A lawyer's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring court orders constitutes utter disrespect to the institution. Court orders cannot be construed as mere requests that may be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. A lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with court's orders not only shows a recalcitrant flaw in character but also underscores the lawyer's disrespect of the court's lawful orders which are only too deserving of reproof. 46
Atty. Nuval committed a disservice to his client by failing to appear in several court hearings which led to the waiver of the right of the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. With his actuations, it is clear that his claim that he remained to be accused's counsel was clearly self-serving, meant only to shield him from a citation for contempt. It was not in expression of his pledge of service and commitment to advance his client's cause.
Upon engagement as accused's counsel, Atty. Nuval took on the responsibility of protecting his client's interest with utmost diligence. He is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, 47 which he failed to do.
Atty. Nuval's act of removing his shirt during a hearing is also deserving of discipline. As Atty. Nuval narrated in his Comment:
"15. . . . the incident happened when there was a power brown-out, and by the time the case of herein Respondent was called, he prayed for resetting. When asked for the reason therefor, he mentioned "because of the weather, Your Honor." To this, the complainant immediately said "If it is because of the weather, I can allow you to remove your shirt." Respondent responded, "Yes, your Honor, I will remove my shirt," and proceeded to do it in the presence of other lawyers, parties and court personnel;
"16. From the foregoing narration, the act was actually provoked by the complainant himself. Worse, the complainant continued to conduct hearing for about two (2) hours, during which time he never took any step to avoid the embarrassing scenario, where the court allowed a counsel to go on trial naked from the waist up; 48
Atty. Nuval's act of removing his shirt during court proceedings was clearly an act of defiance and retaliation to Judge Alcala's denial of his request for a resetting. What aggravated the situation was Atty. Nuval's attempt to pass the blame on Judge Alcala for the conflict and accusing the latter as the one who provoked him, instead of expressing apologies to the Court. Atty. Nuval's unrepentant and arrogant attitude cannot be countenanced. aDSIHc
It is the sworn duty of lawyers to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but the maintenance of its supreme importance. Thus, the Lawyer's Oath enjoins all members of' the Bar to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts in order not to erode the faith and trust of the public in the judiciary. 49
A lawyer must uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, and preserve the people's faith in the judiciary. All lawyers have the sworn and moral duty to help build the high esteem and regard towards the courts that is essential to the proper administration of justice. Thus Canon 11 of the CPR mandates that lawyers shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Lawyers must build and not destroy the high esteem and regard towards the judiciary. "To undermine the judicial edifice 'is disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people.'" 50
In Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, 51 Atty. Falcis was found guilty of direct contempt of court, for having acted in a contumacious manner by appearing at the preliminary conference "attired with a casual jacket, cropped jeans and loafers without socks."
In that case, the Court held that as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court, Atty. Falcis is duty hound to maintain towards the Court a respectful attitude essential to the proper administration of justice. He is charged with knowledge of the proper manner by which all lawyers are to conduct themselves during judicial proceedings. The Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility exhort him to maintain the requisite decency and to afford dignity to the Court. 52
As for the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court has pronounced that such depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion after due consideration of the surrounding facts. 53 In similar cases, the Court imposed penalties ranging from a fine with warning, reprimand to suspension of three months (3) or six (6) months, or even disbarment in aggravated cases. 54
In view of the fact that this is Atty. Nuval's first infraction, the Court finds that the recommended penalty of suspension for three (3) months with warning is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Elpidio Nuval GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The suspension in the practice of law shall lake immediately upon receipt of this Resolution by Atty. Elpidio Nuval. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation informing the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Elpidio Nuval's personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO,J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2.Id. at 111, 114.
3.Id. at 6-7.
4.Id. at 31.
5.Id. at 33.
6.Id. at 36.
7.Id. at 40, 111.
8.Id. at 47.
9.Id. at 48.
10.Id. at 9-10, 50.
11.Id. at 52.
12.Id. at 54.
13.Id. at 1-4.
14.Id. at 3-4.
15.Id. at 10, 56-62.
16.Id. at 63-64.
17.Id. at 1-4.
18.Id. at 1-6.
19.Id. at 7.
20.Id. at 86-89.
21.Id. at 89.
22.Id. at 88.
23.Id. at 9-15.
24.Id. at 15.
25.Id. at 9-13.
26.Id. at 111-114; signed by Court Attorney III Pamel Angela U. Antig-Aportadera, reviewed by Court Attorney VI Rosita Requilles-Lopez, approved by Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Cristina B. Layusa.
27.Id. at 114.
28.Id. at 113-114.
29.Id. at 115-116.
30.Id. at 115.
31.Id. at 118.
32.Id. at 119.
33.Id. at 118-123.
34.Id. at 121-123.
35.Id. at 86-89.
36.Id. at 89.
37.Heck v. Judge Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004. 467 Phil. 798, 820.
38.Malute v. Selmo, A.C. No. 12882 (Notice), December 2, 2020.
39.Mitchell v. Judge Amistoso, A.C. No. 10713, September 8, 2020.
40.Id.
41.In re: Resolution dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. CV No. 94656 v. Mortel, 791 Phil. 1, 17 (2016).
42.Rollo, p. 120.
43. See id. at 9-10, 50.
44.Mapalad v. Atty. Echanez, 810 Phil. 355, 362 (2017).
45.In re: Resolution dated August 14, 2013 of the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. CV No. 94656 v. Mortel, supra note 41 at 29.
46.Telles v. Atty. Dancel, A.C. No. 5279, September 8, 2020.
47.Id.
48.Rollo, pp. 122-123.
49.Judge Pantanosas v. Judge Pamatong, 787 Phil. 86, 94 (2016).
50.Ramos v. Lazo, A.C. No. 10204, September 14, 2020.
51. G.R. No. 217910, September 3, 2019.
52.Id.
53.Re: Resolution dated October 11, 2017 in OCA IPI No. 16-1577-RTJ v. Atty. Tacorda, A.C. No. 11925, September 28, 2020.
54.Destreza v. Arellano, A.C. No. 9942 (Notice), October 7, 2020; Sia Su v. Atty. Talaboc, A.C. No. 8538 (Notice), February 17, 2020; Telles v. Dancel, A.C. No. 5279, September 8, 2020.