THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12933. June 14, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4809]
NESTOR L. ALVAREZ, ET AL., complainants,vs. ATTY. SIM ORESCA MATA, JR., ATTY. JULIANO P. NACINO AND ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 14, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12933 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4809] (Nestor L. Alvarez, et al. v. Atty. Sim Oresca Mata, Jr., Atty. Juliano P. Nacino and Atty. Freddie A. Venida). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Letter dated October 8, 2020 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline transmitting to the Court the documents pertaining to this case; and
(2) the Notice of Resolution dated September 7, 2019 of the IBP Board of Governors approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case for lack of merit.
This resolves the Administrative Complaint 1 dated October 20, 2015 filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline by Nestor L. Alvarez (Nestor), Tekila Grace D.V. Alvarez (Tekila), Luzviminda P. De Leon (De Leon), June Franklyn A. Fernandez (Fernandez), and Mary Grace F. Barcelona (Barcelona) (collectively, complainants) against Atty. Juliano P. Nacino (Atty. Nacino), Atty. Sim Oresca Mata, Jr. (Atty. Mata), and Atty. Freddie A. Venida (Atty. Venida) (collectively, respondents) for alleged political harassment.
The Antecedents
Complainants Nestor, Tekila, De Leon, Fernandez and Barcelona are the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, City Treasurer, City Accountant and City Budget Officer of the Science City of Muñoz, Province of Nueva Ecija, respectively, while Atty. Nacino, Atty. Mata, and Atty. Venida are partners/associates of the Nacino Venida and Castro Law Office.
Complainants alleged that respondents had served them a Letter 2 dated October 13, 2015 through Atty. Mata and another Letter 3 dated April 10, 2013 by Atty. Nacino and Atty. Venida (subject letters) which they claimed were brazen attempts to pursue the misplaced perception of the law as an instrument of coercion and to instill fear on complainants, who were not well-versed in legal nuances and principles.
In particular, complainants pointed out that the Letter 4 dated October 13, 2015 contained the phrases "DENY-OR-OTHERWISE-TRUE" and "ADMISSION BY NON-CONTROVERSION-OR-OTHERWISE" 5 of some matter in connection with the Muñoz City local government's purchase of seven real properties and its contract with Sun Cellular for the use of a 927-square-meter property under Transfer Certificate Title No. N-19942 which were both purportedly without budgetary allocations/appropriations in support thereof. 6
Moreover, complainants further alleged that the Letter 7 dated April 10, 2013 contained allegations that they had colluded with the winning bidder as regards a computer program project during the bidding process conducted by the Bids and Awards Committee in 2005. 8
Complainants posited that the sending of the subject letters was politically motivated, a form of harassment, and a fishing expedition to substantiate a complaint that respondents were preparing against them. They added that both the language and the substance of the subject letters were an insult to the legal community and constituted as despicable and actionable documents against respondents. 9
However, complainants did not mention which law was breached by respondents and what penalty they wanted to be meted out against them. 10
Respondents, on the other hand, denied the allegations that they had violated any of their ethical duties. They explained that they merely wanted to uncover official wrongdoings and remain constantly vigilant against corrupt practices or acts of elected officials, and that the subject letters were couched in a manner that would easily be understood by complainants, who must at all times tell the truth to the public. 11
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In his Report and Recommendation, 12 Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero (Investigating Commissioner) noted that the subject letters were couched in a manner that is within the realm of a lawyer's privilege. Accordingly, he recommended the outright dismissal of the case. 13
In its Resolution 14 dated September 7, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's factual findings and recommendation to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit.
Issue
Whether the complaint against respondents has merit.
The Court's Ruling
After a careful review of the records, the Court agrees with the factual findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper."
However, as the Investigating Commissioner correctly found, the language used by respondents in the subject letters cannot be deemed to run afoul with the precepts of the CPR. The phrases "Deny-or-Otherwise True" and "Admission by Non-Controversion-or-Otherwise" contained in the subject letters simply expressed a gentle warning that if the one from whom the information or admission is being sought would not deny or controvert the same, his silence would be taken to mean as an admission of the truth of the information sought, 15 for it is against human nature to say nothing in the face of false accusations. 16 Thus, apart from the language in the subject letters being presented in a seemingly intricate legal phraseology, its meaning is simple and is far from being abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
For this reason, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
In closing, the Court stresses that complainants, as public officials, must be able to absorb the thrust of public scrutiny and should not be onion-skinned. 17 They are, after all, expected to serve with the highest degree of integrity and must remain accountable at all times to the people.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Atty. Juliano P. Nacino, Atty. Sim Oresca Mata, Jr. and Atty. Freddie A. Venida is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2.Id. at 5-7.
3.Id. at 8-10.
4.Id. at 5-7.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 113.
7.Id. at 8-10.
8.Id. at 113-114.
9.Id. at 114.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 112-116.
13.Id. at 116.
14.Id. at 110.
15.Id. at 116.
16.Grefaldeo v. Judge Lacson, 355 Phil. 266, 271 (1998).
17.De Leon v. People, 776 Phil. 701, 720-721 (2016).