THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8951. March 27, 2017.]
DANIEL A. DIMAGIBA, complainant,vs. ATTY. RODRIGO RG ARTUZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 27, 2017,which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8951 (Daniel A. Dimagiba v. Atty. Rodrigo RG Artuz). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letter dated November 17, 2016 of Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra, Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, forwarding to the Court the notice of resolution and entire records of the case; and
(2) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-730 dated October 10, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors which reversed and set aside the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case considering that the issue in this case pertains to the intramurals among lawyers in the Civil Aviation Authority.
Complainant Engr. Daniel Dimagiba filed an administrative complaint 1 against Respondent Atty. Rodrigo Artuz for culpable violation of the Code of Professional Ethics and his oath as a lawyer, praying for respondent's disbarment. Essentially, complainant averred that respondent, without authority, unduly and oppressively declared him to have relinquished his position as Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines' (CAAP) Deputy Director General for Operations (DDGO) and that, as a consequence thereof, his employment is currently on floating status. Complainant avers that respondent made him turn over his functions to Col. Napoleon Garcia (Director Garcia), upon the directive of Col. Ramon Gutierrez, as the designated Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of CAAP, despite that, at that time, Col. Gutierrez had no appointment duly approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) yet. Complainant further avers that respondent also caused the termination of contracts of service of his staff. Corollary to this, complainant also questions respondent's appointment as CAAP's Chief of Staff/Corporate Executive Officer V by Col. Gutierrez.
In his Comment, 2 respondent alleges that complainant's function as DDGO is only temporary or in acting capacity as there was no approved plantilla positions for the newly-established CAAP yet and his appointment as such was never attested or approved by the CSC. As to the terminated contracts of service of the staff under complainant, respondent averred that he did not cause the same, contrary to complainant's allegation. According to the respondent, those contracts had already expired and the management saw fit not to renew them. Hence, there is no termination to speak of.
On July 6, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation 3 stating that respondent be meted a penalty of simple censure with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
On October 10, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-730, 4 reversing and setting aside the said Report and Recommendation, considering that the issue in the instant case pertains to the intramurals among lawyers in the CAAP, thus effectively dismissing the case.
In the Extended Resolution 5 issued by Director Ramon S. Esguerra of the Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP, it was recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed as records show that respondent only performed his duties based on his knowledge of the law and the supporting documents available to him. 6 It was found that the complainant failed to allege, much less prove, that respondent violated the high moral standards of the legal profession in the performance of his public duties. If at all, according to the IBP, the allegations in the complaint and the evidence presented only prove that respondent was swept into an intramurals among lawyers/officials in the CAAP. 7
Indeed, records show that respondent merely apprised complainant of Director Garcia's appointment in his position as DDGO. Respondent even explained to the complainant the legal basis of Director Garcia's authority as DDGO and the effects thereof on complainant's position. Anent the alleged erroneously terminated contracts of complainant's staff, records also show that the same had already expired and as such, contrary to complainant's allegation, it was not respondent who caused their termination. This was, likewise, explained by respondent to the complainant. As correctly found by the IBP, complainant's imputation that respondent acted with malice in the questioned actions is not supported by any proof other than complainant's bare allegations and suspicions.
Time and again, this Court has held that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar. 8 Even lesser penalties would not be appropriate to apply in this case considering that, as correctly found by the IBP, there is nothing in the complaint which shows respondent's supposed misconduct. AScHCD
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED. Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-13.
2.Id. at 127-147.
3.Id. at 380-382.
4.Id. at 378-379.
5.Id. at 383-388.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Raul M. Francia v. Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014.