Elivera v. Magbanua

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9430. July 30, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4338]

RAMON I. ELIVERA, complainant, vs.ATTY. IFOR I. MAGBANUA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 30, 2019which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 9430 [formerly CBD Case No. 14-4338](Ramon I. Elivera vs. Atty. Ifor I. Magbanua)

In a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed on April 26, 2012, Ramon I. Elivera (complainant) charged Atty. Ifor Ibabao Magbanua (respondent) with violations of the lawyer's oath, Rule 10.01 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Records show that respondent was designated as Officer-In-Charge of the Internal Affairs Service of Philippine National Police (PNP) effective February 1, 2010. 2 On March 16, 2010, Police Superintendent (PSupt.) Reynaldo A. Magtajas executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay charging complainant with grave misconduct, less grave threats and conduct unbecoming of a police officer before the PNP for allegedly sending malicious text messages. 3 The Investigator/Evaluator, Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Eulogio V. Antonio, Jr. recommended the summary hearing proceeding for grave misconduct to determine the extent of his administrative liability and to elevate the case to the Legal Affairs Service, NAIS, Camp Crame. 4 Subsequently, Internal Affairs Service (IAS) referred the records of the case to the Chief of Legal Affairs Division for summary hearing.

In a Resolution 5 dated June 21, 2010, Presiding Hearing Officer, Atty. Chito S. Pantaleon of the IAS dismissed Adm. Case No. 10-013 against complainant for grave misconduct for lack of probable cause.

On September 15, 2011, complainant retired from the PNP after reaching the mandatory age of retirement. On December 8, 2011, Atty. Cecilia C. Miranda, Chief of Legal Affairs Division issued a Certification 6 that complainant has an administrative case docketed as IAS 10-013 and is pending review of the Acting Inspection General, IAS. Complainant wrote a letter to respondent appealing for the early approval of the Legal Affairs Division-IAS recommendation in the above-entitled case. 7

Because of the alleged unjust refusal of respondent to issue his IAS Clearance, complainant sought the assistance of the Office of the Ombudsman. In a Letter dated December 12, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers, Atty. Rainier C. Almazan, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Office requested respondent to apprise the office of any action taken to expedite the release of complainant's IAS Clearance. 8

Atty. Felicidad Ramos Gido of the Special Action Center wrote a letter to the Ombudsman Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer stating that Adm. Case No. IAS-10-013 filed against complainant was already resolved by Atty. Chito S. Pantaleon. However, the case was referred and returned to Atty. Chito S. Pantaleon for further review. Thus, no clearance can be issued to complainant. 9

Thereafter, complainant filed several complaints on different dates against respondent for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) No. 3019; R.A. No. 6713; oppression, grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty; perjury and gross dishonesty. The complaints were anchored on respondent's alleged unjustified failure and refusal to approve or disapprove the recommendation of Atty. Chito S. Pantaleon. Respondent filed his Counter-Affidavit to the charges.

Still not satisfied, complainant filed the present case, charging respondent with violations of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 10.01 and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, by stating the same allegations he pleaded before the Office of the Ombudsman. Complainant claims that respondent made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in his Counter-Affidavit dated March 13, 2012 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman amounting to perjury, by making it appear that Adm. Case No. 10-013 has already been approved, and that he was not the one who should or had approved the said decision, rather, the Chief of PNP, when the case was never forwarded to the Office of the Chief of PNP as the case was still with the PNP Legal Affairs headed by respondent and was referred back to Atty. Chito S. Pantaleon for further review.

In his Comment, 10 respondent asserts that the complaint filed against him is completely baseless and unfounded, and that complainant has deliberately filed repetitious and vexatious suits in different fora or quasi-judicial agencies against the respondent with no motive, except to harass and destroy the reputation of respondent, who was then Acting Inspector General of IAS. Complainant also filed multiple complaints with the same factual allegations, issues and relief sought which were already answered by respondent and decided upon by the Ombudsman.

Respondent maintains that the disbarment complaint has no merit, and that his Counter-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman was made in good faith and without malice. Moreover, he was of the honest opinion that the Chief of PNP is the final authority who will decide on the said administrative case filed by PSupt. Rodolfo Magtajas against the complainant. Thus, respondent claims that he did not commit falsehood or perjury nor violate his oath as officer of the Court.

In a Consolidated Decision 11 dated December 21, 2012, the Office of the Ombudsman found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty for his failure to act on complainant's administrative case within a reasonable time and meted the penalty of fine equivalent to his salary for one month in lieu of suspension considering that he has already retired from the service. In a Consolidated Resolution 12 dated December 21, 2012, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charge of perjury and other criminal charges against respondent, which involved the same allegations as in the present disbarment case. The Ombudsman held that the complainant failed to establish by convincing evidence that respondent consciously and deliberately asserted false statements contained in his counter-affidavit.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP

On January 5, 2016, the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation 13 recommending the dismissal of the administrative charges against respondent for lack of merit. The Investigating Commissioner found no factual and legal basis to hold respondent administratively liable for any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, stating, to wit:

Hypothetically admitting the complainant's allegations to be true, we find the same to be not so serious and do not directly or indirectly affect the integrity of Respondent as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, in the light of the following considerations:

First, there is no showing on record that all administrative complaints against Complainant PSupt. Elivera should be finally resolved by Respondent, in his capacity as the Deputy and Acting Chief of IAS, PNP. Objectively, the claim of Respondent that the resolution on complainant's ADM Case No. 10-013 should finally be approved by the Chief, PNP is a legal issue, not a factual issue, there being no showing that the final approval on the resolutions [on] administrative charges against a [sic] Police Superintendents, as in the case of herein Complainant has already been delegated to the Deputy or Acting Chief of the IAS, PNP or that the final authority rests indeed with the Respondent as integral part of his functions and duties. As such, we cannot hold Respondent administratively liable for a legal opinion which he believes to be his honest opinion.

Second, Complainant has the burden to prove the culpability of the Respondent that the latter has indeed committed falsehood. Complainant failed to prove his allegation of falsehood based merely on the basis of a legal opinion of Respondent that it is the PNP Chief who is the final authority to decide on administrative cases filed against herein complainant.

Third, Complainant cannot automatically utilize the Consolidated Resolution of the Ombudsman finding Respondent guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. For one, there is no showing that the said decision is already final and executory. Besides, even assuming that the Ombudsman decision on Respondent's Simple Neglect of Duty is already final and executory, said findings has no direct relation with the Respondent's duty as member of the Bar and as an officer of the Court. Besides, Simple Neglect of Duty is not a crime involving moral turpitude and this Commission cannot utilize the same as an automatic ground for holding respondent, administratively liable as a lawyer. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

Fourth, while resort to this Commission is not prohibited or disallowed considering that any person may file a case against members of the Bar, (Sec. 1, Rule 139-B, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645) Complainant's filing of five (5) administrative and criminal cases against the Respondent before the Ombudsman and this present disbarment complaint, over essentially the same factual allegations render Complainant's motive highly suspicious.

Fifth, we agree with the observation made by the Ombudsman in its Consolidated Decision (Rollo, pp. 139-140), of Respondent's absence of wanton negligence or open disregard of his duties and functions or that the delay was animated his ill will x x x.

Sixth, on Complainant's charge of perjury, we find the Ombudsman's findings (Rollo, pp. 109-110) of Respondent's good faith or lack of malice sufficient to address the insufficiency of Complainant's evidence x x x.

xxx xxx xxx 14 (Emphasis in the original)

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Board of Governors in its Resolution 15 dated March 17, 2016, adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner because there is no deliberate assertion of falsehood in respondent's Counter-Affidavit, as found by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Court's Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records of this case, We resolve to adopt the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors and dismiss the administrative case filed by complainant for his failure to show that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 10.01 16 and Canon 10 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Here, We agree with the findings of the IBP, as affirmed by the Board of Governors, that there was no deliberate assertion of falsehood in respondent's Counter-Affidavit. We give great weight to the findings of the Ombudsman, as cited in the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, which found that respondent did not consciously and willfully assert false statement in her Counter-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman, to wit:

x x x It must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. Thus, a mere assertion of a false objective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. Complaint herein failed to establish by convincing evidence that respondent consciously and deliberately asserted such false statement contained in his counter-affidavit. Respondent was the acting head of the IAS and as such, was understandably occupied by voluminous number of equally important cases for his official action. He cannot be expected to personally go after the case of the complainant to know its exact status or whereabouts. To our mind, respondent merely misstated what he really meant about the case of the complainant. Thus, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, we are inclined to appreciate the defense of good faith interposed by the respondent. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-vis the allegation of deliberate assertion of falsehood in perjury cases. 18 (Citation omitted)

Prescinding from the foregoing, We likewise find no factual and legal basis to hold respondent administratively liable for any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings of the Investigating Commissioner as affirmed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Accordingly, the disbarment case for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath against respondent Atty. Ifor I. Magbanua is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-7.

2.Id. at 68.

3.Id. at 69.

4.Id. at 70-71.

5.Id. at 76-77.

6.Id. at 78.

7.Id. at 79.

8.Id. at 154.

9.Id. at 27.

10.Id. at 43-56.

11.Id. at 131-148.

12.Id. at 100-109.

13.Id. at 495-506.

14.Id. at 503-506.

15.Id. at 493-494.

16. 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.

17. Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

18.Rollo, pp. 109-110.