THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10526. July 19, 2017.]
DEXTER B. ARANJUEZ, complainant,vs. CITY PROSECUTOR NEOPITO ED MAGNO and ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR DON S. GARCIA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 19, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10526 (Dexter B. Aranjuez, Complainant vs. City Prosecutor Neopito Ed Magno and Assistant Prosecutor Don S. Garcia, Respondents). — Through this administrative complaint, 1 complainant Dexter B. Aranjuez (Aranjuez) charges respondents City Prosecutor Neopito Ed G. Magno (CP Magno) and Assistant Prosecutor Don S. Garcia (AP Garcia) with violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03, 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), violation of their oath of office, and dereliction of duty.
The Antecedent Facts
The instant administrative complaint traces its roots from the criminal case for physical injuries filed by Aranjuez against Barangay Captain Wilmer Villabrille (Villabrille) and several other persons.
Aranjuez alleged that on September 19, 2013, he was mauled by Villabrille, Erwin Saligumba (Saligumba), Kevin Tuburan (Tuburan), Reynaldo Marcos (Marcos) and Lobert Morada. He sought the help of Barangay Captain Imelda Yagong (Barangay Captain Yagong) who, in turn, sent two barangay tanod to pacify Villabrille's group. In the evening of September 19, 2013, Aranjuez was again allegedly attacked by Villabrille's group, this time with Villabrille's wife and daughter. 3
At the scheduled mediation conference before the barangay captain between Aranjuez and Villabrille's group on October 3, 2013, Aranjuez was again allegedly attacked by Saligumba and Tuburan. Since settlement did not appear to be forthcoming, a Barangay Certification to File Action 4 was issued. TAIaHE
Consequently, a criminal complaint 5 for physical injuries was filed by Aranjuez against Villabrille and his group while separate criminal complaints 6 for direct assault were filed by Barangay Captain Yagong and her two barangay tanod.
In a Resolution 7 dated October 23, 2013, the City Prosecution Office of Island Garden City of Samal (IGACOS), Davao Del Norte, through AP Garcia and as approved by CP Magno, recommended the filing of an information for slight physical injuries against Saligumba and Tuburan for the mauling incident on October 3, 2013. However, the charge for physical injuries against Villabrille and the others was dismissed for failure to establish their criminal culpability. In the complaint for direct assault, the City Prosecution Office of IGACOS, Davao Del Norte, again through AP Garcia and as approved by CP Magno, recommended the filing of an information for direct assault against Saligumba, Tuburan and Marcos for resisting the authority of Barangay Captain Yagong but dismissed the complaint for direct assault filed by the two barangay tanod. 8 However, on motion for reconsideration, the City Prosecution Office of IGACOS, Davao Del Norte, through AP Garcia and as approved by CP Magno, reconsidered itself and recommended the dismissal of the complaint for direct assault. 9
Meanwhile, Aranjuez appealed the Resolution 10 dated October 23, 2013 insofar as it dismissed his complaint for physical injuries against Villabrille and the other members of his group. The Regional Prosecutor, in its Resolution 11 dated February 13, 2014 reversed the assailed resolution and recommended the filing of two informations against Villabrille and the other members for the two mauling incidents on September 19, 2013.
At the proceedings before the trial court for slight physical injuries against accused Saligumba and Tuburan, the latter moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a cause of action as the complaint allegedly did not comply with the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. During the hearing on said motion to dismiss, AP Garcia manifested that a motion for inhibition of all government prosecutors in IGACOS had been filed by Barangay Captain Yagong and hence, requested for time to confer with the Regional State Prosecutor if he should still proceed with prosecuting the case. 12 Upon re-setting, AP Garcia manifested that the prosecution will no longer file a comment on the motion to dismiss. 13 Hence, the motion was submitted for resolution and on June 4, 2014, the trial court issued an Order 14 dismissing the criminal case on the ground of failure to state a cause of action or prematurity.
Because of these developments, Aranjuez commenced the present administrative case against AP Garcia and CP Magno, alleging that: (1) the Resolution dated October 23, 2013 was issued with evident bias and partiality, as proven by the reversal thereof by the Regional Prosecutor; and (2) AP Garcia and CP Magno's failure to oppose the motion to dismiss, constitutes a violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR, a violation of their oath of office and a dereliction of duty. 15
Upon submission of AP Garcia and CP Magno's Comment, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation in a Resolution 16 dated April 22, 2015. cDHAES
Report and Recommendation
On January 5, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera issued his Report and Recommendation 17 recommending the dismissal of the administrative charges against AP Garcia and CP Magno for lack of merit. The Investigating Commissioner observed that the questioned Resolution dated October 23, 2013 was arrived at on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties. He held that in the absence of malice, gross negligence, corruption, serious irregularity or other illegal considerations, such resolution will not be treated as one issued with partiality or bias. 18 The Investigating Commissioner likewise found no fault on the part of AP Garcia and CP Magno when it did not oppose the motion to dismiss as such act is not ministerial on their part, much less when the Certificate to File Action presented by Aranjuez was indeed irregular and premature. 19
Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended as follows:
WHEREFORE, It is hereby recommended that the administrative charges against [CP MAGNO] (Retired) and [AP GARCIA], be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 20
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
On March 17, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXII-2016-238 21 adopting the findings of facts and recommendation of dismissal by the Investigating Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of facts and recommendation of DISMISSAL by the Investigating Commissioner due to lack of evidence to support the complaint. 22 (Emphasis in the original)
From this resolution, no motion for reconsideration or petition for review before the Court was filed by either party. 23 Pursuant to Rule 139-B, the Notice of Resolution and the records of the case were transmitted to the Court. 24
The Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts and approves the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors dismissing the administrative complaint against CP Magno and AP Garcia.
Section 12 (c), Rule 139-B provides that if the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by the Board is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine), the latter shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Court orders otherwise.
Here, per Report of the Deputy Clerk of Court & Bar Confidant dated April 12, 2017, 25 no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by either party. Hence, the resolution rendered by the IBP Board of Governors exonerating CP Magno and AP Garcia has become final and executory. ASEcHI
In any case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to dismiss the complaint against CP Magno and AP Garcia.
Aranjuez essentially imputes bias and partiality on the part of CP Magno and AP Garcia for issuing the Resolution dated October 23, 2013. However, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, no such bias or partiality can be attributed to respondents as AP Garcia, as approved by CP Magno, resolved the criminal complaint based on the evidence presented by the parties. Settled is the rule that bias and prejudice must be shown to have resulted in an opinion on the merits on the basis of an extrajudicial source, not on what the judge learned from participating in the case. Thus, as long as the opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings are based on the evidence presented, such opinion, although later found to be erroneous, will not prove personal bias or prejudice. 26
Neither do we find respondents guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the CPR which strongly proscribes a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Indeed, it is true that when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he is obliged to exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights so much so that failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. 27 Thus, jurisprudence consistently emphasizes that a "lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so." 28
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court finds no sufficient reason to hold that CP Magno and AP Garcia failed to exercise the required diligence in prosecuting Aranjuez's case. Apart from the alleged failure to oppose the motion to dismiss, no other act or omission was attributed by Aranjuez against CP Magno and AP Garcia that would, perchance, exhibit the latter's manifest neglect of his prosecuting the criminal case. As it is, the only fault which Aranjuez attributes to AP Garcia was the latter's manifestation that the prosecution does not intend to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. But this, per se, is not sufficient to conclude that AP Garcia committed a violation of his oath of office and a dereliction of his duty. With or without such opposition, the trial court will necessarily resolve the motion to dismiss, as it in fact did. To rule that the trial court's grant of the motion to dismiss was due to CP Magno or AP Garcia's fault is illogical and a baseless conclusion.
In any event, the remedy of Aranjuez from such adverse order was not to lash out against CP Magno and AP Garcia, but to pursue the remedies and processes as provided under the Rules which are more than ample to protect his legal interests.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to:
(i) NOTE the letter dated February 6, 2017 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines transmitting the documents pertaining to this case; ITAaHc
(ii) NOTE the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-238 dated March 17, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors dismissing the case; and
(iii) DISMISS the case against respondents City Prosecutor Neopito Ed G. Magno and Assistant Prosecutor Don S. Garcia and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2. Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
3.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
4.Id. at 14.
5.Id. at 15-16.
6.Id. at 17-18.
7.Id. at 19-20.
8.See Joint Resolution dated November 13, 2013; id. at 21-24.
9.Id. at 25-27.
10.Id. at 19-20.
11.Id. at 28-31.
12.Id. at 33.
13.Id. at 38.
14.Id. at 39-40.
15.Id. at 167.
16.Id. at 86.
17.Id. at 160-172.
18.Id. at 168.
19.Id. at 171.
20.Id. at 172.
21.Id. at 158-159.
22.Id. at 158.
23.Id. at 156.
24.Id. at 157.
25.Id. at 156.
26.Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Roxas, 390 Phil. 872, 884 (2000), citing Aleria, Jr. v. Hon. Velez, 359 Phil. 141, 149-150 (1998).
27.Dalisay v. Atty. Mauricio Jr., 496 Phil. 393, 399-400 (2005).
28.Conlu v. Atty. Aredonia, Jr., 673 Phil. 1, 7 (2011).