THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8324. July 10, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4764]
JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, complainant, vs.PROSECUTORS ERNESTO C. MENDOZA, JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG AND ELNORA LARGO NOMBRADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8324 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4764] (Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen v. Prosecutors Ernesto C. Mendoza, Josef Albert T. Comilang and Elnora Largo Nombrado). — For resolution is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment filed by (Ret.) Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen against respondents Prosecutors Ernesto C. Mendoza, Josef Albert T. Comilang and Elnora Largo Nombrado, for gross ignorance of the law, violations of the lawyer's oath and legal ethics, for failure to assess and collect official fees in the notarization of documents. HTcADC
The Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, Ma. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate, dated April 7, 2017, are as follows:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 22, 2009, complainant Judge Medel Arnaldo Belen filed with the Supreme Court a disbarment complaint against the respondents for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Violations of Laws and Lawyer's Oath for:
1) failure to assess and collect the fees for notarization or administration of oath as mandated by Department of Justice Circular No. 42 Series of 2004; and
2) falsely claimed and asserted that the said fees were assessed and collected in their verified answer filed in Administrative Case No. 7784.
The complainant enumerated in his complaint the documents purportedly notarized by the respondents but failed to attach the same in the complaint. The respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars asking the Supreme Court to require the complainant to furnish them a copy of the documents purportedly notarized by them but the complainant was not able to produce the same due to his separation from the judiciary [and] he can no longer have access to the records of Regional Trial Court[,] Branch 36[,] Calamba City. Finding the said reason not fully satisfactory, the complainant was required to secure copies of the document[s] mentioned in the complaint from the RTC of Calamba City and submit the same to the Court.
However, in his undated letter to the Supreme Court received on February 4, 2014, the complainant informed the Court that he was advised by RTC Branch 36 of Calamba City that the records of the said complaint cannot be located[,] therefore[,] no copies of the documents mentioned in the complaint can be found, without any official certification from the RTC[,] Branch 36[,] Calamba City.
The respondents were required to [file] their Comment and asserted that the complaint filed against them is a mere harassment suit; that their Constitutional rights have been violated for failure of the complainant to provide them the documents allegedly notarized in violation of DOJ Circular No. 42 Series of 2004; that the complainant failed to apprise of the nature and cause of accusations against them; that they administered oath as part of their functions being officers authorized to administer oath and that administration of oath, even without collection of fees is a public function. The respondents also stated that they never asserted that fees were assessed and collected from the alleged document is A.C. No. 7784. Lastly, granting that the respondents administered oath without assessing and collecting fees, the complaint should ail (sic) since the complainant failed to produce them. CAIHTE
When the case was referred to this Commission, a mandatory conference was conducted and only the respondents appeared. The Commission issued an Order for the submission of the respective Position Papers. However, the respondents did not file their Position Papers. Hence, this Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Violations of Laws and Lawyer's Oath by reason of their failure to assess and collect notarial fees when they administer oath on several documents contained in the complaint.
RULING
The case should be DISMISSED.
The complainant was not able to substantiate the allegations in his complaint, he failed to [attach] to his complaint the alleged documents purportedly notarized by the respondents. The sincerity of the complaint is doubtful. Likewise, the reasons of the complainant for his failure to produce the alleged notarized documents and how he communicated with the High Court is even unbecoming of a lawyer not [to] mention that he was a Judge of a Regional Trial Court. The reason of the complainant for not being able to produce the documents was not even supported by a certification from the RTC[,] Branch 36[,] Calamba City[,] that the said documents cannot be located. It only vouched the fact that there is no document at all to support the complaint for disbarment against the respondents.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Indeed, considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Supreme Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.
The profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It is a lifetime profession. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney may be able to amass considerable means to support himself and his family, besides the honor and prestige that accompany his office and profession. To deprive him of such honored station in life which would result in irreparable injury must require proof of the highest degree, which we find nowhere here. aScITE
Considering the foregoing, it is recommended to dismiss the charges against respondents inasmuch as such charges cannot be proven without the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the [I]nvestigating Commissioner recommends the DISMISSAL of the administrative complaint against PROSECUTORS ERNESTO MENDOZA, JOSEF ALBERT COMILANG, ELNORA LARGO NOMBRADO, the same being an obvious harassment complaint not supported by evidence.
Respectfully submitted. 2
In Resolution 3 dated November 28, 2017, the Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and, likewise, dismiss the complaint.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Prosecutors Ernesto Mendoza, Josef Albert Comilang and Elnora Largo Nombrado, and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at 82-85. (Emphasis in the original)
3.Id. at 80-81.