THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9990. July 18, 2022.]
DR. EMILY DODSON DE LEON, ATTY. DIOSDADO G. MADRID, DEAN ATTY. JOE-SANTOS BALAGTAS BISQUERA and DR. MA. CORAZON RAMONA DE LOS SANTOS, complainants,vs. ATTYS. JUDITH Z. LUIS, ALFREDO A. SALTING, JR. and ERNERSTO DAVID LLAMAS DE LOS SANTOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 18, 2022, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9990 (Dr. Emily Dodson de Leon, Atty. Diosdado G. Madrid, Dean Atty. Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera and Dr. Ma. Corazon Ramona de los Santos v. Attys. Judith Z. Luis, Alfredo A. Salting, Jr. and Ernersto David Llamas de los Santos). — Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment 1 filed by Dr. Emily Dodson de Leon (De Leon), Atty. Diosdado G. Madrid, Dean Atty. Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera, and Dr. Ma. Corazon Ramona De los Santos, (collectively, complainants) against respondents Atty. Judith Z. Luis (Atty. Luis), Atty. Alfredo A. Salting, Jr. (Atty. Salting) and Atty. Ernesto David Llamas De los Santos (Atty. De los Santos), (collectively, respondents) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Antecedents
Atty. De los Santos was charged with Qualified Theft docketed as Criminal Case No. 32306-R before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 60. 2 A warrant of arrest 3 dated December 7, 2012 has been issued against him. However, his whereabouts allegedly remained unknown which thus rendered service of the warrant impossible. 4 Hence, according to complainants, Atty. De los Santos is a fugitive from justice by hiding so he could not be found and avoid legal custody and detention. 5
Respondents Atty. Luis and Atty. Salting, on the other hand, are the counsels of Atty. De los Santos. According to the complainants, they are guilty of repeatedly and intentionally committing unethical and illegal act of obstruction of justice when they connived with their client, Atty. De los Santos, and did not exercise on him a citizen's arrest nor report to the nearest Philippine National Police station the presence of a fugitive when the latter appeared before them 6 during the preparation and notarization of three pleadings 7 they filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
Hence, as it was only on November 21, 2014 when the CA rendered its Amended Decision 8 and ordered the dismissal of the case and the quashal of the warrant of arrest against Atty. De los Santos. 9 The complainants argue that Attys. Luis and Salting are liable under the CPR as the warrant was still effective and outstanding from December 7, 2012 to November 21, 2014 when they failed to report a fugitive's presence to the authorities. 10
Atty. Salting denied these accusations in his Comment 11 to the Petition for Disbarment. According to him, he had not met nor seen Atty. De los Santos during the preparation of the said pleadings as the law firm already has the facts of the case. 12 Likewise, he did not commit any act tantamount to harboring a person known to him as a fugitive and neither were there any evidence pertaining to that allegation. 13
In her Comment, 14 Atty. Luis likewise denied the allegations of the complainants arguing that she did not commit any act constitutive of the offense of obstruction of justice penalized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1829, Section 1 (c) and (e). She averred that when Atty. De los Santos went to her notarial office for purposes of verification of a pleading, she merely performed the customary and mandated duty of a notary public, which is to determine the identity of the affiant and to ascertain that the documents he was signing was of his own free act and deed. 15 She also reasoned that when she did such notarial act, she did not perform any act of concealment or hiding from the police authorities, nor covering up of Atty. De los Santos as she did not even try to meet up with the latter at a secluded or secret place in order to deliberately hide him from the authorities. 16 She further pointed out that when the investigating prosecutor in the case for obstruction of justice against them filed the Information in court, Atty. De los Santos had already posted bail. 17 Atty. Luis also emphasized that as Atty. De los Santos' lawyer in the Qualified Theft case, she is duty-bound to maintain inviolate the confidence and to preserve the secrets of his client. Citing Canon 17, Atty. Luis further posited that as a lawyer, she owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that she shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in her by the latter. 18
As regards Atty. De los Santos, on the other hand, he argued in his Comment 19 that the case for Qualified Theft and the present disbarment case was only one of the many cases filed against him by De Leon in order to harass him and make him unsuited to hold a position at the University of Manila which his family owns. He perceives these acts as a scheme employed by De Leon to "grab wealth" 20 from his family as she even went to the extent of accusing him of stealing electricity and water from Benguet Pines Tourist Inn which is also family-owned and registered in their own family corporation, the University of Manila. He likewise prayed for the disbarment case to be dismissed for being unsubstantiated 21 as it lacks "the highest degree of evidence required to sustain the charge against him." 22
Meanwhile, on October 7, 2013, the Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig City issued a Resolution 23 ordering that an Information for obstruction of justice be filed against Atty. Luis while the charge against Atty. Salting was ordered dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. 24
Notably, on July 6, 2021, the case for obstruction of justice filed by the complainants against Atty. Luis was dismissed by the Court in De Leon v. Atty. Luis, 25 to wit:
We thus deny the Petition for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed ruling. By grave abuse of discretion, We refer to the capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction of the respondent court which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Further, to amount to grave abuse of discretion, the abuse must be so patent and gross tantamount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to carry out an obligation that the law requires, as where power is exercised arbitrarily by reason of one's hostility passion. The RTC correctly held that the MeTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for obstruction of justice against Atty. Luis for lack of proof to show clear intent to help Ernesto evade or otherwise delay the proceedings against him.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED. 26
The Report and Recommendation
On October 20, 2018, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report and Recommendation 27 finding that herein respondents did not violate the Canons of the CPR including Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. According to the Investigating Commissioner, being one of the counsels of Atty. De los Santos, Atty. Luis is under no obligation to effect a citizen's arrest or to report him to the authorities every time he would appear before the latter's notarial office for purposes of verification of a pleading. Truly, Attys. Luis and Salting merely acted based on what is being required in the Canons that they should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them by their client and that they owe the latter fidelity to his cause. 28
The Investigating Commissioner further noted that Atty. De los Santos did not evade prosecution nor did he commit any overt act that would signify the intent to avoid the same. 29 In fact, Atty. De los Santos even submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court when he questioned the validity of the warrant of arrest against him. 30
The Investigating Commissioner recommended:
WHEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the Undersigned hereby finds in favor of the Respondents Atty. Ernesto De los Santos, Atty. Judith Z. Luis and Atty. Alfredo A. Salting, Jr. and hereby recommends the DISMISSAL of this complaint for lack of merit. 31
On September 7, 2019, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution 32 adopting the factual findings of the Investigating Commissioner, thus:
CBD Case No. 14-4358Dr. Emily D. De Leon, et al. vs.
RESOLVED to APPROVE and ADOPT, as it is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.33
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees and adopts the factual findings of the IBP on Bar Discipline as approved and adopted by the Board of Governors of the IBP.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client mindful always of the trust and confidence reposed in him. 34 This has been consistently inculcated in every lawyer's mind when it comes to handling cases especially so in this case, where the charge itself for obstruction of justice filed against Atty. Luis by herein complainants has already been dismissed by the Court. 35
Indeed, a charge for obstruction of justice, absent any clear showing of an overt act evidencing intent to help the fugitive remain in violation of the law, would not have a leg to stand on. 36 As it was both the Metropolitan Trial Court and the RTC which already found the absence of any overt act on the part of Atty. Luis to conceal or harbor her client, to which the Court agreed to be likewise consistent with the text of Section 1 (c) of P.D. No. 1829. The Court again finds no reason why this present disbarment case anchored on the same charge of obstruction of justice should not fall.
For what P.D. No. 1829 punishes, is the very act of knowingly and willfully committing actions with the intention to obstruct, impede, frustrate or delay the administration of justice. This is undeniably absent in this case against Atty. Luis who merely performed her duty as legal counsel and who could have met with Atty. De los Santos at a more secluded place had she intended to harbor, hide or conceal the latter from the authorities.
Moreover, it is a Constitutional mandate to presume that an accused is innocent until proven otherwise. To expect a lawyer to report his client to the authorities every time the latter would need to have an audience with his counsel for any reason whatsoever would definitely defeat such mandate. It would likewise run counter to the very essence of the rule on speedy administration of justice if no counsel would readily take on a case for fear that they might be charged with obstruction of justice every time an accused would seek legal assistance from them.
On the other hand, the Court agrees with the observation of the Investigating Commissioner that Atty. De los Santos also did not commit any overt acts to show that he had any intention to evade prosecution or delay the administration of justice. 37 Such being the case, Atty. De los Santos cannot thus be considered a fugitive from justice.
As regards Atty. Salting, considering that the charge of obstruction of justice against him has already been dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, the disbarment case against him must also therefore fall.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint for disbarment is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Volume I, pp. 1-18.
2. Id. at 3.
3. Id. at 19.
4. Id. at 3.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 4-9.
7. Id. at 22-78; 79-103; 104-113.
8. Id., Volume IV, pp. 1927, 1933, 1945-1956; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
9. Id. at 1956.
10. Id. at 2172.
11. Id., Volume I, pp. 231-239.
12. Id. at 232.
13. Id. at 233.
14. Id. at 253-271.
15. Id. at 256-257.
16. Id. at 257-258.
17. Id. at 258.
18. Id. at 261-265.
19. Id. at 327-361.
20. Id. at 337-334. n
21. Id.
22. Id. at 361.
23. Id. at 272-281.
24. Id. at 280-281.
25. G.R. No. 226236, July 6, 2021.
26. Id.
27. Rollo, Volume IV, pp. 2172-2181; penned by Commissioner Atty. Emmanuel C. Palacios, Jr.
28. Id. at 2176.
29. Id. at 2175.
30. Id. at 2176.
31. Id. at 2181.
32. Id. at 2169-2171.
33. Id. at 2169.
34. Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners v. Atty. Dioneda, 447 Phil. 408, 409 (2003).
35. De Leon v. Atty. Luis, supra note 22.
36. Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners v. Atty. Dioneda, supra note 34 at 409.
37. Rollo, Volume IV, p. 2175.
nNote from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.