THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11805. October 4, 2017.]
LENIE S. CRISOSTOMO, complainant,vs. CITY PROSECUTOR RUEL H. ESPALDON AND CITY PROSECUTOR OSCAR M. LASAM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 4, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.C. No. 11805 (LENIE S. CRISOSTOMO, Complainant v. CITY PROSECUTOR RUEL H. ESPALDON AND CITY PROSECUTOR OSCAR M. LASAM, Respondents). — After a perusal of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DISMISS this administrative complaint for lack of a prima facie case against the respondents.
The complainant would take the respondents to task for issuing resolutions for the filing of an information for estafa against her in court that resulted in the issuance of the warrant for her arrest. However, her sinumpaang salaysay merely narrated the circumstances of her involvement in the transaction leading to the filing of the charge of estafa against her, and she prayed therein that an investigation be held towards the eventual dismissal of the criminal and civil cases against her. 1 She did not at all specify or set forth in her sinumpaang salaysay any misconduct or irregularity supposedly committed by the respondents by virtue of their issuance of the resolutions.
The primary objective of administrative charges against lawyers is to punish and discipline the erring ones as a way for the Court to safeguard the administration of justice as well as to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of unethical and unprofessional lawyers. The Court may remove from the ranks of the Legal Profession any members whose utter disregard of their Lawyer's Oath proves them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the Philippine Bar. 2 Hence, administrative charges that are bereft of any sufficient allegations of professional infractions or ethical deviations on the part of the respondent lawyers must be struck down and dismissed for being unworthy, vexatious or malicious. Such treatment is a just outcome for the complainants' not providing the factual bases for the remedies prayed for.
We particularly note that the respondent lawyers are a sitting City Prosecutor and his Assistant City Prosecutor, and the subject of the complainant's sinumpaang salaysay is related to their official acts in investigating the case for estafa brought against her. Their actuations were clearly incidental to the performance of their official duties and responsibilities as public prosecutors. As such, the Court cannot take cognizance of her sinumpaang salaysay even assuming that her allegations therein had prima facie merit. This is because the jurisdiction over their performance of official duties and responsibilities exclusively and originally devolved on the Secretary of Justice, their superior. If they committed errors or abused their discretion in resolving the charge of estafa against her, the proper recourse for her was not to bring this administrative charge in this Court but to make the proper charge against them in the Office of the Secretary of Justice in accordance with and pursuant to the rules of the Department of Justice. 3 Such approach conforms to the principle of separation of powers underlying our republican system of government.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against the respondents.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Lim v. Barcelona, A.C. No. 5438, March 10, 2004, 425 SCRA 67, 78.
3. See Republic Act No. 10071; DOJ Department Circular No. 70, July 3, 2000 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal); and DOJ Department Circular No. 84, June 5, 2000 (Procedure Governing the Investigation of Administrative Complaints/Charges against NSP Procedures).