SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11294. July 27, 2016.]
[Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4479]
JOVEN M. DOMINGUEZ, DENNIS P. BAUTISTA, JOSE DENNIS R. DONAYRE, JUAN G. SANTOS, LUCIANO S. CANTOS, ERNESTO D. DIZON, FERNANDO P. RAMOS, JOSEPHIRE S. MAGLUNOB, NOEL L. MIRANDA, RICKY D. MEDINA, AND RONNIE A. MORALES, complainants, vs. ATTY. CRISTETA D. TAMAYO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11294 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4479] — Joven M. Dominguez, Dennis P. Bautista, Jose Dennis R. Donayre, Juan G. Santos, Luciano S. Cantos, Ernesto D. Dizon, Fernando P. Ramos, Josephire S. Maglunob, Noel L. Miranda, Ricky D. Medina, and Ronnie A. Morales v. Atty. Cristeta D. Tamayo
This Petition 1 filed by Joven M. Dominguez, Dennis P. Bautista, Jose Dennis R. Donayre, Juan G. Santos, Luciano S. Cantos, Ernesto D. Dizon, Fernando P. Ramos, Josephire S. Maglunob, Noel L. Miranda, Ricky D. Medina and Ronnie A. Morales (complainants) stemmed from an incident involving a labor dispute pending before the Court of Appeals (CA). Complainants pray that Atty. Cristeta D. Tamayo (respondent), their employers' counsel be suspended or disbarred for dishonesty and gross misconduct.
The Antecedent
On April 30, 2013, complainants filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Philstar International Services Corp. (Philstar), Ace Builders LLC and Alex S. Batac. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled against complainants but the LA ruling was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which found that they were illegally dismissed. This prompted Philstar, et al. to file a petition for certiorari before the CA in CA GR SP No. 135442.
During the pendency of the said petition, complainants were in the process of implementing the December 27, 2013 decision of the NLRC. At that time, the Labor Sheriff had already implemented the Writ of Execution issued by the LA by garnishing some amounts from an escrow account of Philstar. Complainants then moved for the release of the garnished amounts. Sometime in December 14, 2014, they received an order granting such release.
On December 16, 2014, complainants received an undated Manifestation 2 that Philstar filed with the NLRC stating that the CA had granted its petition in its November 28, 2014 Decision. On December 18, 2014, they received a copy of the said decision.
On January 7, 2015, complainants received Philstar's Compliance 3 which was prepared and submitted to the CA. In the said compliance, respondent informed the CA that she had received a copy of the November 28, 2014 Decision on December 15, 2014. Complainants, however, averred that respondent lied as to the actual date of receipt of the decision. They noted that as early as December 11, 2014, a certified true copy of the decision had been secured, which was undisclosed in either the undated manifestation or in the compliance respondent had submitted.
Hence, complainants filed a complaint praying that respondent be suspended and/or disbarred from the practice of profession. They claimed that she committed deception, which was in violation of Rule 10.01 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In her Answer with Countercharge for Disbarment against complainants' counsel, Atty. Thelma A. Jader-Manalo, respondent countered that complainants' claim was misleading and unsupported by evidence on record. She claimed that what she secured on December 11, 2014 from the One Shop Processing Center (OSPC) was merely photo copy of the decision after inquiring as to the availability of the decision on that labor case. A copy was thereafter submitted to the NLRC. Respondent explained that she officially received a copy of the decision only on December 15, 2014. cHECAS
IBP Report and Recommendation
In his May 19, 2015 Report and Recommendation, 5 Commissioner Arsenio P. Adriano (Investigating Commissioner) recommended the dismissal of the case against respondent. He found that respondent's claim that she merely received a photocopy on December 11, 2014 was supported by the receipts of the certification fees she had paid. He then stated that respondent officially received a copy of the decision only on December 15, 2014. Thus, he concluded that respondent did not mislead the NLRC.
In its June 6, 2015 Resolution, 6 the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors (Board) resolved to adopt and approve the recommendation of the investigating commissioner, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, 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. Thus, the case is hereby DISMISSED. 7
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and rulings of the IBP.
Gross misconduct is defined as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrantly unlawful conduct on the part of the person involved in the administration of justice, conduct that is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. Such conduct is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. 8
In this case, complainants failed to demonstrate that respondent was guilty of such wrong doing. Mere allegation that respondent lied as to prior knowledge of a decision rendered by the CA was insufficient. In fact, the records refute complainants' claim of deception as she officially received a copy of the decision on December 15, 2014. Thus, respondent was forthright with the dates indicated in the paper she had filed.
Complainants must be reminded that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. In the case at bench, complainants failed to carry out that burden and, for such reason, this complaint must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved.
The complaint against Atty. Cristeta D. Tamayo is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2. Id. at 8-9.
3. Id. at 32-33.
4. Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
5. Id. at 138-139.
6. Id. at 136-137.
7. Id. at 136.
8. Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr., 468 Phil. 329 (2004), citing Yap v. Judge Inopiquez, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431, May 9, 2003, 403 SCRA 141 (2003).