THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7858. November 29, 2017.]
RAPHAEL G. CABATAÑA, petitioner,vs. ATTY. LEON G. MOYA AND ATTY. JERRY P. BASIAO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 29, 2017, which reads as follows: DETACa
"A.C. No. 7858 [CBD Case No. 14-4334]: (Raphael G. Cabataña v. Atty. Leon G. Moya and Atty. Jerry P. Basiao). — This is a disbarment case filed by Raphael G. Cabataña (Cabataña) against Atty. Leon G. Moya, Jr. and Atty. Jerry P. Basiao (respondents). 1
Cabataña alleged that respondents "used their knowledge of the law" 2 in order to file a "tramped up criminal case" 3 for perjury against him. The charge of perjury arose from an arbitration case for money claims before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board filed by the Faculty and Employees Labor Union (FELU) of West Negros College (WNC). 4
In the perjury case, it was alleged that Cabataña perjured himself when he signed the union's position paper in 2007 stating "that I am one of the complainant-beneficiaries of the petitioning union." 5 When Cabataña retired in 1998, he signed an Affidavit of Release and Discharge which stated "I, for myself, heirs . . . hereby RELEASE AND DISCHARGE, absolutely, irrevocably, wholly, fully and forever WEST NEGROS COLLEGE, INC. . . ." 6
Cabataña alleged that the filing of the perjury case against him by the college's lawyers was "moved by malice and bad faith" 7 since the decision of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board had already become final and was in its execution stage. He alleged that they could have raised the issue of his representation of the union from the start. 8
In their Comment, 9 respondents emphasize that it was their client West Negros College who filed the perjury case. 10 They also point out that both FELU and WNC have already reached a settlement, shown by the Compromise Agreement 11 dated June 20, 2008.
They also allege that the perjury case against him had legal basis. They claim that since he already received his monetary benefits when he retired and absolved WNC of all liabilities, he would have been allowed to benefit twice from the settlement, to the prejudice of WNC and the valid members of FELU. 12
The case was referred by this Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. 13 A mandatory conference was called by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on January 21, 2009. 14
However, Cabataña wrote a letter dated January 30, 2009 15 addressed to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 16 and the Office of the Bar Confidant 17 stating that he was unable to attend the conference as he had already left for the United Kingdom as of July 2008. 18 Thus, he stated that he was constrained to drop or dismiss his complaint against respondents. He also added that he understood that his failure to pursue the case would not prevent the Office of the Bar Confidant from proceeding with the investigation. 19
Acting on this letter, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, on February 28, 2012, terminated the preliminary conference and directed the parties to submit their respective position papers. 20 Respondents submitted their Position Paper on April 19, 2012 21 while Cabataña submitted his Position Paper on May 22, 2012. 22
In his Report and Recommendation dated October 3, 2012, Investigating Commissioner Felimon Abelita III (Investigating Commissioner Abelita) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for being unverified, in violation of Rule II, Section 1 and Rule III, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the re-filing by the complainant of a verified complaint. 23
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2013-635 dated May 11, 2013, adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 24
On July 9, 2014, this Court's issued a Resolution 25 ordering the remand of this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. This Court found that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines should not have dismissed outright the complaint for lack of verification since complainant had substantially complied with the requirement. The President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was further ordered to explain why the complaint was resolved erroneously. The dispositive portion of this Resolution read:
WHEREFORE, this court RESOLVES to:
(1) NOTE the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-635 dated May 11, 2013 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors; aDSIHc
(2) NOTE the letter dated December 2, 2013 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines transmitting the documents pertaining to this case with the information that no motion for reconsideration has been filed by either party;
(3) REMAND the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation, report, and recommendation within 60 days from receipt of notice; and
(4) CAUSE a copy of this resolution to be served upon the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to explain within a NON-EXTENDIBLE period of 30 days from the receipt of this resolution why the Committee on Bar Discipline decided a case in a patently erroneous manner. 26 (Emphasis in the original)
Pursuant to this Court's July 9, 2014 Resolution, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline conducted a mandatory conference. 27 Complainant failed to appear despite due notice so the conference was deemed terminated and the parties were directed to submit their respective position papers. 28
In her Report and Recommendation 29 dated August 18, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Binas recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant had submitted a position paper to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board in 2007 stating that he was the President of FELU of WNC when he had already ceased to be connected with WNC since 1998. 30 In the verification of his position paper, he stated:
a. That I am one of the complainant-beneficiaries of the petitioning Union[;]
b. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing pleading;
c. That I have read all the contents therein and I attest that the same are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and as can be extracted from authentic records. 31
The Investigating Commissioner found that at the time the case was filed against WNC, complainant was no longer the President of FELU. Moreover, he had signed an Affidavit of Release and Discharge after he received his separation pay and benefits, thereby contradicting the statements made in his position paper before the National Mediation and Conciliation Board that he was one (1) of the complainant-beneficiaries. Thus, WNC, represented by respondents, would have been justified in filing the perjury case against him. 32
This Report and Recommendation was adopted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XXII-2016-192 33 dated February 25, 2016. The Office of the Bar Confidant further noted that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review had been filed by either party.
This Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the Report and Recommendation dated August 18, 2015, 34 which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors likewise adopted and approved.
Respondents were able to present sufficient evidence to prove that the filing of the perjury case against complainant was not for the purpose of harassment. In De Guzman v. Tadeo: 35
The power to suspend or disbar ought to be exercised with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons. The two charges preferred against the respondent are not supported by convincing evidence, and it is the rule that disciplinary action against a member of the bar must be predicated upon proof of guilt that satisfies the court with reasonable certainty. 36
As the allegations against respondents are unsubstantiated, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.
In its July 9, 2014 Resolution, 37 this Court likewise ordered the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to explain its dismissal of this case on the ground of non-verification even if complainant had substantially complied with the verification requirement. 38
An undated Explanation 39 was submitted by then Integrated Bar of the Philippines National President Vicente M. Joyas (Atty. Joyas), 40 in compliance with this Court's directive.
Pertinent portions of his Explanation read:
It is respectfully submitted that for as long as unverified complaints are not dismissed outright and the complainant is given every opportunity to comply with the basic requirement of verification, then there is nothing wrong with insisting on its enforcement to ensure that the allegations in the complaint were made in good faith and are not merely speculative.
In this particular case, while the IBP stands by its position that complaints should be verified (even if done belatedly), it acknowledges that it made a mistake in its strict enforcement of the rule considering that complainant had later on filed a verified Position Paper which should have been considered as substantial compliance of the rule. The mistake was probably due to the fact that Investigating Commissioner Abelita III did not mention in his Report and Recommendation that the Position Paper was verified and this fact might have been overlooked by the past Board of Governors in its review of the case.
To prevent similar lapses in the future, the undersigned has instructed the present National Director for Bar Discipline, Atty. Dominic C.M. Solis, to direct all Investigating Commissioners to be more thorough in their narration of the statement of facts in their Report and Recommendation and to be mindful of applying the principle of substantial compliance whenever practicable. The present Governors have also been instructed to review more carefully the records of the cases presented to them for resolution. 41
Lack of verification is a mere formal requirement that could be corrected through further compliance or simply waived in favor of substantial justice. 42 Unverified complaints are dismissed only if complainant fails to comply with the requirement of verification even after having been given the opportunity to do so. Nothing in the records shows that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines gave complainant an opportunity to submit the required verification. Atty. Joyas also acknowledged that complainant's verified Position Paper could have been considered as substantial compliance. 43 TIADCc
However, Atty. Joyas failed to properly explain the lack of diligence exhibited by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline in the initial resolution and dismissal of this complaint. He merely stated that "it made a mistake" due to Investigating Commissioner Abelita's failure to include certain statements of fact in his Report and Recommendation. There is, however, not an explanation on why Investigating Commissioner Abelita's Report and Recommendation was missing crucial facts that could have aided in the resolution of the complaint. The Explanation submitted is, thus, insufficient.
While the dismissal of disbarment complaints is not a power that this Court may delegate to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 44 its Commission on Bar Discipline is nonetheless "tasked to investigate and make recommendations on complaints for disbarment, suspension and discipline of lawyers" 45 referred or filed before it. This task must be undertaken with the utmost fidelity expected of any investigating commissioner, regardless of however groundless and unmeritorious the complaint may be. Falling short of this standard would merit disciplinary action by this Court.
Atty. Joyas and Atty. Abelita III would have been reprimanded had they remained officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Considering that their terms of office have since ended, let this case serve as a warning to members of the Commission on Bar Discipline and the officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The same or similar infractions in the future may compel this Court to impose disciplinary action on the erring officer.
WHEREFORE, Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-192 dated February 25, 2016 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is NOTED. The Complaint against Atty. Leon G. Moya, Jr. and Atty. Jerry P. Basiao is DISMISSED.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED."(Gesmundo, J., on leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 3.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 24-32.
10.Id. at 24.
11.Id. at 48-50.
12.Id. at 27.
13.Id. at 110.
14.Id. at 122.
15. The letter was mistakenly dated "January 30, 2008."
16.Rollo, pp. 115-116.
17.Id. at 114.
18.Id. at 115.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 133.
21.Id. at 134-142.
22.Id. at 170-176.
23.Id. at 195-196.
24.Id. at 194.
25.Id. at 199-201-A.
26.Id. at 201.
27.Id. at 203.
28.Id. at 223.
29.Id. at 292-294.
30.Id. at 293.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 293-294.
33.Id. at 290-291.
34.Id. at 292-294.
35. 68 Phil. 554 (1939) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
36.Id. at 558.
37.Rollo, pp. 199-201-A.
38. Id. at 200.
39. Id. at 282-285.
40. Atty. Joyas ceased being IBP President in 2015. See IBP National Presidents <http://www.ibp.ph/ibp_structure.html> (last visited November 28, 2017).
41. Rollo, pp. 283-284.
42. See Fernandez v. Atty. Novero, Jr., 441 Phil. 506 (2002) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
43. Id. at 283.
44. See Bar Matter No. 1645 (2015), Third Whereas Clause.
45. Tan v. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, 532 Phil. 605, 612 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].