Concerned Students of Western Mindanao State University v. Esguerra, Jr.

THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 10656. April 3, 2019.]

CONCERNED STUDENTS OF WESTERN MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ATTY. GRACE G. BERNARDO, petitioners, vs.ATTY. QUIRINO G. ESGUERRA, JR., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 3, 2019, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 10656 (Concerned Students of Western Mindanao State University, through Atty. Grace G. Bernardo v. Atty. Quirino G. Esguerra, Jr.). — For resolution is a Complaint for Disbarment and/or Disciplinary Action 1 filed by the Concerned Students of Western Mindanao State University, through Atty. Grace G. Bernardo, against respondent Atty. Quirino G. Esguerra, Jr. before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, relative to the alleged sexual harassment or rape committed by the latter against a certain Ms. Jean Mariel Salilig.

The Report and Recommendation of Investigating Commissioner Atty. Leandro M. Millano, dated April 6, 2017, follows:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

xxx xxx xxx

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In an unsigned letter-complaint, dated October 16, 2014, addressed to the Honorable Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, the writers-complainants, who identified themselves as the "Concerned Students of the Western Mindanao State University" in Zamboanga City, reported the alleged sexual harassment or rape committed by herein respondent Atty. Quirino G. Esguerra, Jr., to a certain Ms. Jean Mariel Salilig.

On October 30, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator indorsed the letter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action. Accordingly, the letter-complaint was docked as A.C. No. 10656 and raffled to the Third Division of the Honorable Supreme Court, which issued a Resolution dated February 9, 2015, requiring respondent Atty. Esguerra to comment on the letter-complaint within ten (10) days from notice, and referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), after the filing of the comment, for investigation, report and recommendation.

On April 15, 2015, respondent filed his Comment to the letter-complaint.

Meanwhile, a certain Atty. Gracelina G. Bernardo, who claimed to be a member of the faculty of the College of Law of the Western Mindanao State University ("WMSU", for brevity), filed in A.C. No. 10656 a letter dated 6 April 2015 informing the Supreme Court that she does not represent any student or group of students in any case against respondent, and there was no complaint filed by Ms. Jean Mariel Salilig, through her, against respondent. ATICcS

With the referral of the case to the IBP, it was re-docketed as CBD Case No. 15-4570, and initially assigned to then Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor, who set the case for mandatory conference in June 25, 2015.

During the scheduled mandatory conference on June 25, 2015, only respondent appeared. Commissioner Villamor then issued an Order directing Atty. Bernardo to inform this Commission within ten (10) days from receipt of the order about the information given to her by a certain Salilig against Atty. Esguerra. In the same Order, Commissioner Villamor requested Atty. Eduardo F. Sanson, the Dean of WMSU, College of Law, to conduct an investigation regarding the alleged sexual harassment or rape committed by Atty. Esguerra.

In a Manifestation filed on August 11, 2015, Atty. Bernardo informed this Commission that she cannot disclose what Ms. Salilig told her against Atty. Esguerra as she could not obtain the consent of Ms. Salilig and she is bound by the strict "lawyer-client confidentiality" and "privileged communication rule." For his part, Dean Sanson filed a Manifestation and Compliance, dated March 8, 2016, informing this Commission that no complaint has been filed against respondent by any person before his office or in the WMSU. The Dean likewise certified that respondent has no derogatory record in said school.

On August 28, 2015, Commissioner Villamor issued another Order directing Atty. Bernardo to inform this Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt regarding the alleged complaint of a certain Salilig against Atty. Esguerra. In response thereto, Atty. Bernardo filed a Manifestation dated 28 September 2015 reiterating that her client, Ms. Mariel Salilig, has not given her consent or approval for such disclosure.

This case was then re-assigned to the undersigned Commissioner, who issued an Order on January 22, 2016 directing the parties to submit their verified position papers within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order. In compliance to said Order, respondent filed his verified position paper on February 18, 2016. On the other hand, complainants failed to submit their verified position paper despite ample time given to them. Hence, the undersigned was constrained to submit the case for resolution and prepare the foregoing report and recommendation sans position paper from the complainants.

II. STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT

The complainants, who chose to conceal their identities and only identified themselves as some concerned students of WMSU, claimed in their letter-complaint that respondent is a professor in WMSU, College of Law; that Ms. Salilig, a freshman in said law school, is a student of respondent and part-time secretary of the latter in his law office; that there was a recent sexual harassment or rape committed by respondent against Ms. Salilig; and that the victim confessed and narrated the incident to Atty. Bernardo, who is also a law professor in WMSU.

Complainants further alleged that there were other similar incidents that happened to the female students of respondent, most of whom were purportedly afraid to file a complaint, while some were offered monetary considerations by respondent to settle the case; that respondent is [fond] of sexually abusing his female students; and that respondent has been removed from Ateneo de Zambaonga University as professor due to several reports from female law students who were victims of respondent.

Thus, complainants prayed for the conduct of immediate investigation against respondent.

III. RESPONDENT'S POSITION/DEFENSE

By way of defense, respondent countervailed that the anonymous complaint cannot prosper and that he has no pending case, whether administrative or criminal, before any court, quasi-tribunal or administrative agency, submitting as proof the Certification issued by Atty. Sanson, Certification from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Zamboanga City, Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Zamboanga City, and Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City. Thus, respondent argued that if he indeed committed sexual harassment or rape, a criminal complaint to that effect should and could have been lodged by the offended party before the Office of the Prosecutor, or a case could have been pending before the trial courts in Zamboanga City.

Respondent also lamented that the Notice he received from the Honorable Supreme Court did not come with a copy of the letter-complaint of herein complainants, which is necessary for him to be able to properly defend his person as he must be informed of the charges against him, including the attendant circumstances concerning the case.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The instant administrative case has been initiated by way of an unsigned letter-complaint from unknown individuals who represented themselves as some concerned students of WMSU. An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence. TIADCc

After a careful assessment of the records of this case, the undersigned Commissioner finds that there is a total absence of any competent evidence that could substantiate and establish the allegations in the October 16, 2014 letter-complaint. It must be recalled that complainants did not appear in the mandatory conference proceeding held in this case to substantiate the allegations in their complaint, nor file the required position paper.

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by respondent, particularly the various certifications issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Zamboanga City, the Office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Zamboanga City, and the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City, show that as of April 6, 2015, there is no pending case against respondent in said offices, and respondent has never been accused nor convicted of any crime. While those certifications do not constitute as proof that the acts imputed against respondent did not happen, the mere fact that the purported victim, Ms. Salilig, did not file a formal charge against respondent creates a serious doubt on the truthfulness of the allegations of complainants in their letter-complaint.

Moreover, the result of the investigation conducted by the Dean of the College of Law of WMSU, as contained in the Manifestation and Compliance, dated March 8, 2016 filed with this Commission, militates against the present complaint. Dean Sanson manifested that he could not ascertain the existence or identity of the alleged concerned students who filed the present complaint despite diligent efforts, and there was no complaint filed, sent or submitted to the school authorities of the WMSU, while adding that respondent has no derogatory records in said school.

The failure of complainants to substantiate the material allegations in their letter-complaint is fatal to their cause. An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred (sic) against him until the contrary is proved and that as an officer of the court he has performed his duties in accordance to his oath. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and establish his charges by a clear and preponderance of evidence.

The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties; but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not indubitably proven. For a lawyer's good name is, in the ultimate analysis, his most important possession.

In view of the foregoing, the undersigned Commissioner recommends the DISMISSAL of the present administrative case considering that respondent cannot be meted with any administrative sanction, specially the supreme penalty of disbarment, on the basis alone of the unsubstantiated allegations in the letter-complaint dated October 16, 2014. 2 (Citations omitted.)

In his Report and Recommendation dated April 6, 2017, Investigating Commissioner Atty. Leandro M. Millano recommended the dismissal of the complaint due to unsubstantiated allegations in the complaint. In a Resolution dated April 19, 2017, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved said Report and Recommendation, and likewise dismissed the complaint.

Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Quirino G. Esguerra, Jr. and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED. AIDSTE

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J.,on leave.)

Very truly yours,

WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.

2.Id., unpaged.