SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9670. November 15, 2021.]
ALEX A. DELA CERNA, complainant,vs. ATTY. DORINA A. HERNANDEZ-JOYA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 November 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9670 (Alex A. Dela Cerna v. Atty. Dorina A. Hernandez-Joya). — This case arose from a letter 1 addressed to the Office of the Bar Confidant, dated November 5, 2012, filed by Alex A. Dela Cerna (complainant) praying for the disbarment of Atty. Dorina A. Hernandez-Joya (respondent) for dishonesty and betrayal of public trust under Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (f) 2 of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Section 92 3 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Version of Complainant:
Complainant is a police officer and, at the time of the filing of the complaint, was assigned as the secretary regional staff and the assistant chief and team leader of the Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (AIDSOTG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP)-MIMAROPA based in Camp Efigenio C. Navarro, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. 4
Records show that on October 17, 2012, complainant's group, through Police Superintendent Timoteo L. Espiritu, Sr., referred to the Office of the City Prosecutor, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, certain documents for appropriate action for offenses committed in violation of RA 9165 by one Ernie Padua y Gasco (Ernie Padua). 5 Ernie Padua was arrested as a result of a drug operation conducted by complainant's group on October 13, 2012. 6
On October 18, 2012, respondent as city prosecutor issued a Resolution 7 which noted "a gap in the chain of custody of evidence," 8 thus, remanded the complete records of the case to the Regional AIDSOTG for further investigation without prejudice to its re-filing. The Resolution also ordered the immediate release of Ernie Padua from detention. 9
Thereafter, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration 10 of the Resolution, stating that the same is "misplaced and is tantamount to a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics x x x, other related policies, and guidelines of the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Office of the Tanod Bayan." 11 Complainant further stated that respondent came up with a "deceiving resolution attendant with intentional concealment of facts and patent laxity and disregard of the available evidence on record." 12
During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, complainant and his group re-submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor the same set of documents with additional papers. 13
On October 23, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor, through respondent, issued another Resolution 14 denying complainant's motion for reconsideration. The Resolution notes that the joint affidavit of arrest subscribed only on October 22, 2012 confirms that there was indeed no affidavit of arrest presented when the cases were first presented for inquest, and that the re-filing of the cases on October 22, 2012 already makes them fall under the "regular preliminary investigation." 15
Thus, on November 5, 2012, complainant filed a complaint-affidavit 16 averring that the evidence against Ernie Padua was complete and that respondent showed malice, dishonesty, betrayal of public trust, manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence, serious irregularity, and even "case fixing" in the return of the records of the case for further investigation.
Version of respondent:
Respondent argued that when complainant's group filed a case for inquest on October 17, 2012, she was on leave and advised them to return the following morning with the entire documents. 17
The following day, respondent noticed that the receiving clerk of the regional crime laboratory did not sign the chain of custody of evidence thereby creating a gap in the handling of evidence. 18 When she inquired on this from the police officers, the latter were just surprised, thus, she issued a Resolution remanding the case for further investigation. 19 Upon further perusal of the records, respondent found out there also was no affidavit of arrest or of the poseur-buyer attached to the records. 20
Instead of following her advice, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration which inappropriately made blatant attacks on respondent's character and integrity. 21
Respondent resolved the motion for reconsideration, furnishing a copy thereof to the PNP Director-General, PNP Chief Legal Officer, PNP Regional Director and the PNP Provincial Director. Respondent claims that complainant's further attacks on her person and credibility as a public servant in local media and social media prompted her to desist from further conducting the preliminary investigation of the case. She also endorsed the case to the Office of the Regional Prosecutor for complainant's proper disposition. 22
Respondent denied the misconduct imputed against her. She alleged that she merely exercised her discretion and performed her official duties as the inquest or city prosecutor as she deemed proper under the circumstances and the evidence on hand. 23
Report and Recommendation of
In its Report and Recommendation 24 dated October 9, 2019, the IBP-CBD, found nothing to support complainant's serious allegations of malice, dishonesty, betrayal of public trust, manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence, serious irregularity, and even "case fixing." Thus, the CBD recommended the dismissal of the case.
Recommendation of the IBP
On February 28, 2020, a Resolution 25 was passed by the IBP through the BOG, approving and adopting the CBD's Report and Recommendation, to wit:
CBD Case No. 14-4167Alex A. Dela Cerna 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 and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, the case is hereby recommended to be DISMISSED. 26
Our Ruling
The Court dismisses the disbarment case against respondent for lack of jurisdiction.
This Court emphasizes that complainant seeks to hold respondent liable for acts committed in the latter's capacity as city prosecutor. The general rule with regard to a lawyer holding a government office is that he or she "may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.'' 27 "However, if the government official's misconduct 'is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground.'" 28 In short, a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his lawyer's oath. 29
In this case, however, complainant charged respondent with a disbarment case not for acts committed in violation of her lawyer's oath but for acts committed in her capacity as city prosecutor. In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleges that respondent issued a "malicious resolution x x x attendant with serious irregularity and committed in bad faith, [c]onsidering that it was rushed without fully scrutinizing the evidence submitted x x x." 30 He goes on further to state that:
The RESOLUTION on Motion for Reconsideration dated October 23, 2012 signed by City Prosecutor DORINA H. JOYA is a PRIMA FACIE evidence that she is desperate in trying to cover up the BLATANT LIES she said in the RESOLUTION dated October 18, 2012. In the first resolution, she claimed that there was a gap in the CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM, however, she shifted her DISHONESTY in the SECOND RESOLUTION paragraph 4 dated October 23, 2012 to which she claimed that the arresting officers did not submit AFFIDAVIT OF ARREST is definitely NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF. How can the arresting officers submit the case folder properly particularly the affidavit of arrest when the CITY PROSECUTOR DORINA H. JOYA intentionally refused to receive the documents and the affidavit where it was supposed to be subscribed during the Inquest proceedings by CITY PROSECUTOR DORINA H. JOYA? 31
Plainly, the acts complained of undoubtedly arose from respondent's performance and discharge of her official duties as prosecutor of the Department of Justice. The IBP, thus, has no jurisdiction over respondent as government lawyers charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties are within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authorities of the government, including the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan, and, in this case, the Secretary of Justice. 32 Indeed, the accountability of respondent as an official discharging her official duties as a lawyer of the Government is always to be differentiated from her accountability as a member of the Philippine Bar. 33
ACCORDINGLY, the disbarment case filed against respondent, Atty. Dorina A. Hernandez-Joya, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
The Notice of Resolution dated February 28, 2020 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors which approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation dated October 9, 2019 of the Investigating Commissioner, and recommended the dismissal of the case; transmitted by letter dated March 3, 2021 of Director Randall C. Tabayoyong, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records of the case, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."(S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2. Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (f) of RA 3019 state:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
3. Section 92 of RA 9165 states:
Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases. — Any government officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this act, who, through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
4.Rollo, pp. 58, 237.
5.Id. at 2-6.
6.Id. at 237.
7.Id. at 29.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 36-41.
11.Id. at 36.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 237-238.
14.Id. at 30-31.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 58-64.
17.Id. at 239.
18.Id. at 29.
19.Id. at 239.
20.Id. at 30.
21. Id. at 239.
22. Id. at 30-31.
23. Id. at 240.
24.Id. at 236-241. Penned by Commission Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.
25.Id. at 234-235.
26.Id. at 234.
27.Sismaet v. Atty. Cruzabra, A.C. No. 5001, September 7, 2020 citing Fuji v. Atty. Dela Cruz, 807 Phil. 1 (2017); Facturan v. ProsecutorBarcelona, 786 Phil. 493, 499 (2016); Berenguer-Landers v. Atty. Florin, et al., 709 Phil. 562, 572 (2013); Olazo v. Justice Tinga (Ret.), 651 Phil. 290, 298 (2010): Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez, 520 Phil. 117 (2006); Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig, 448 Phil. 199 (2003); Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco, 332 Phil. 740 (1996); Dy v. Miranda, et al., 274 Phil. 837, 844 (1991); Gonzales-Austria v. Judge Abaya, 257 Phil. 645, 659-660 (1989); Garcia, et al. v. Milla, 121 Phil. 849 (1965).
28.Sismaet v. Atty. Cruzabra, id. citing Olazo v. Justice Tinga(Ret.); Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig; Dy v. Miranda, et al., id.
29.Abella v. Barrios, Jr., 711 Phil. 363, 370 (2013).
30.Rollo, p. 60.
31.Id. at 61.
32.Sismaet v. Atty. Cruzabra, A.C. No. 5001, September 7, 2020.
33.Trevola v. Robles,A.C.No. 11550, June 4, 2018.