SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9663. January 31, 2018.]
JUNIPER C. DOMINGUEZ, complainant,vs. ATTY. SERGIO SJ MILAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated31 January 2018which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"A.C. No. 9663 (Juniper C. Dominguez vs. Atty. Sergio SJ Milan). — For resolution is the verified Affidavit-Complaint 1 filed before the Court by Juniper C. Dominguez (complainant) dated October 17, 2012 against Atty. Sergio SJ Milan (respondent) for violation of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
Facts
The respondent acted as counsel for Fangkingan Hewan, Floricel Mi-ing, Mario Yawan and Police Chief Inspector Dexter Paredes (Paredes). On May 11, 2010, a day after the elections, respondent's client's (with the exception of Paredes) were driving three vehicles; a Toyota Hilux owned by then Governor Maximo Dalog, a Mitsubishi Estrada owned by Edward Chaokas, and a Mitsubishi Pajero owned by Mario Yawan. They were intercepted in a military checkpoint somewhere in the Mountain Province allegedly for possession of assorted firearms inside the vehicle. They were detained in the Provincial Office of Bontoc. The respondent sought the release of the vehicles from police custody, pointing out that these are not necessary elements of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8292 and violation of the Omnibus Election Code. He made an undertaking that he will produce them should the court or the prosecutor require the production thereof. 2
The complainant alleged that on June 8, 2010, the Toyota Hilux, which was among those held in custody by the respondent, was sold to a certain Aris Tagala, a car exchange dealer. On December 28, 2010, a final Deed of Sale was executed in favor of Vicente Pimentel, Jr. In his complaint, the complainant argued that "the Toyota Hilux being an evidence of a crime should be protected and preserved, and that its sale is an insult and made mockery [sic] our justice system." He further stated that the sale of the Toyota Hilux cannot be consummated without the knowledge of the respondent being the custodian of the apprehended vehicles. Hence, the complainant believes that the respondent's act is punishable under the RPC and the CPR for lawyers. 3
Report and Recommendation
The Investigating Commissioner, Leo Cleto A. Gamolo, Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP, submitted his Report and Recommendations 4 dated September 10, 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent be found guilty for violating Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that: — "A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice." It is further recommended that he should be fined the amount of Two Thousand (Php2,000.00) Pesos and should further (sic)WARNED that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Respectfully submitted. 5
The Investigating Commissioner found that at the time the respondent took custody of the vehicle, the case was still under investigation. Although it is not an element of the crime, the vehicle is a potential evidence for the prosecution or defense. Moreover, at the time it was sold in December 2010, there was no decision yet from the public prosecutor not to present the Toyota Hilux during trial. According to the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent violated the rules governing recovered articles and release of recovered articles, particularly, Part 3, Sections 18 and 19 of the Department of Justice National Prosecution Service Manual for Prosecutors when he failed to ask permission from the public prosecutor or presiding judge to dispose of the vehicle. 6
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
On January 31, 2015, a resolution 7 was passed by the IBP Board of Governors, to wit:
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2015-110Juniper C. Dominguez vs. Atty. Sergio SJ Milan
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and considering that Respondent only represented his client for the release of the vehicle, the case is hereby DISMISSED.8
The Board of Governors was constrained to reverse and set aside the findings of the Investigating Commissioner finding that there was nothing illegal, abnormal, inappropriate or immoral when the respondent made legal representation for the release of the three vehicles. It held that the respondent's act was not against the CPR, the Lawyer's Oath, or rules mandating high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. 9
Moreover, contrary to the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, the IBP Board of Governors found that the respondent did not violate Part 3, Sections 18 and 19 of the Manual for Prosecutors. As pointed out in the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, the Manual is a guide for the prosecutor and not the respondent. It was further noted by the Board that the respondent was not required by the prosecutor to produce the vehicle, and neither was there a directive from the court to surrender it. Thus, the respondent was merely exercising his duties as an advocate when he retrieved the subject vehicle for his clients. DETACa
WHEREFORE, finding the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to:
(i) NOTE the Letter, undated, of complainant Juniper Dominguez stating his concerns on the disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio SJ. Milan which was dismissed by the Investigating Commissioner and affirmed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors;
(ii) NOTE the Letter dated September 20, 2017 of Atty. Marlou Ubano, Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, by way of compliance with the Resolution dated July 5, 2017 stating that the records of this case, together with the IBP resolution, have been transmitted to the Office of the Bar Confidant on July 5, 2017;
(iii) NOTE the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-110 dated January 31, 2015 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors which reversed and set aside the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and dismissed the case against Atty. Sergio SJ. Milan since he only represented his client for the release of the vehicle;
(iv) NOTE the Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2016-600 dated November 29, 2016 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors which treated the query and clarification of complainant as motion for reconsideration and denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, there being no new reason nor argument adduced to justify the reversal of the decision of the Board of Governors, transmitted by Letter dated June 9, 2017 of Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra, Director for Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, together with the records of the case and CD of pdf file; and
(v) DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Sergio SJ. Milan and consider this case as CLOSED and TERMINATED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2.Id. at 173-174.
3.Id. at 1-2.
4.Id. at 173-177.
5.Id. at 182-185.
6.Id. at 175-177.
7.Id. at 180.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 191.