SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10925. November 24, 2021.]
RONNIE F. FAULVE, complainant,vs. ATTY. JULITA M. CALDERON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10925 (Ronnie F. Faulve v. Atty. Julita M. Calderon). — At the crux of this administrative Complaint1 is the disbarment case filed by Ronnie F. Faulve (Faulve) against Atty. Julita M. Calderon (Atty. Calderon) for Harassment, arising from the Notices of Conferences2 dated 11 November 2014 and 23 December 2014, respectively, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
The salient facts follow.
Faulve averred in his Affidavit Complaint3 that Atty. Calderon, Graft Investigation Officer III (GIPO) and Acting Director of the Public Assistance Bureau, OMB, harassed and misled him when she sent two unlawful Notices of Conferences dated 11 November and 23 December 2014 anent the Complaint he filed against Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. (ES Ochoa) and then Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (now Chairperson of the Commission on Audit) Michael G. Aguinaldo (DESLA Aguinaldo). According to Faulve, Atty. Calderon was not clothed with investigative authority to send the assailed Notices in an acting capacity. She misled Faulve and the public considering that amicable settlement is not applicable to administrative cases. Atty. Calderon's actuations resulted in the exculpation of ES Ochoa and DESLA Aguinaldo from liability and hindered the speedy adjudication of the said administrative Complaint. Likewise, Atty. Calderon violated the rules on service of official papers as the questioned Notices were served via private courier. 4
Traversing Faulve's averments, Atty. Calderon countered that her actions were well within the realm of the mandated duties of the Acting Director of the Public Assistance Bureau of the OMB. 5
When the OMB received Faulve's Complaint filed against ES Ochoa and DESLA Aguinaldo, it was not considered as a formal Ombudsman case as indicated in its Control Number IC-OC-14-1068. Rather, it was treated as an administrative case or a Request for Assistance (RAS) case, when assessed by the Ombudsman-designated evaluators. RAS refers to any form of grievance seeking redress, relief or public assistance which does not necessarily amount to a criminal, administrative or forfeiture complaint. The RAS filed by Faulve was then forwarded to the Public Assistance Bureau of the OMB. 6
Atty. Calderon asserted that as Acting Director of the Public Assistance Bureau, she performed several tasks covering internal administrative matters and rendering legal advice to walk-in complainants. As such, she had no hand in the evaluation of Faulve's Complaint. As to her signing of the two assailed Notices, she claimed that this was done in good faith, in the regular performance of her duties as Acting Director, and in consonance with the existing Ombudsman rules regarding the disposition of RAS cases. 7
In the same vein, Atty. Calderon took exception to Faulve's avowal that she "backed up" ES Ochoa and DESLA Aguinaldo when she issued the Notices. As Acting Director of the Public Assistance Bureau, she was mandated to follow the prescribed rules and procedures in handling RAS cases. Anent the issue of sending notices via private courier, the Chief of the OMB Central Records attested that the OMB had engaged the services of private couriers to address the need for immediate delivery and service of notices and orders. 8
In his Report and Recommendation9 dated 3 May 2017, Investigating Commissioner Rogelio N. Wong of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that Faulve adduced no supporting evidence which would substantiate his charges against Atty. Calderon. He merely submitted his initial Affidavit Complaint; the assailed Notices of Conferences, and the pending administrative case which he himself filed against Atty. Calderon, but the same was eventually dismissed for lack of merit. 10
Moreover, the IBP adjudicated that Atty. Calderon was able to present credible and substantial evidence to prove the regularity in the performance of her duties as a public officer. She convincingly showed that she had the authority to perform the acts complained of, particularly the issuance of the Notices of Conferences and the dispatch of the same via private courier. Whence, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit. 11
In its Resolution12 dated 22 March 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the Complaint. aScITE
Our Ruling
The Court gives imprimatur to the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
It is primal that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. 13 An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the Court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 14 It is elemental that the quantum of proof in administrative cases such as disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. 15
As aptly observed by the IBP, Faulve miserably failed to discharge his bounden duty.
The evidence at hand evinces that in pursuit of the instant disbarment case, Faulve filed his Affidavit Complaint and attached thereto as supporting documents the Notices of Conferences and the letter-complaint which he himself filed against Atty. Calderon before the OMB and which case was later dismissed for lack of merit. Apart from the aforementioned pieces of evidence, however, Faulve presented no iota of proof to substantiate his allegations of harassment and misleading against Atty. Calderon.
Notably, when the disbarment case was set for two instances of mandatory conferences before the IBP, Faulve failed to appear thereat without any valid reason or excuse. He neither filed the Mandatory Conference Brief nor the Verified Position Paper as only Atty. Calderon submitted the requisite pleadings to bolster her own defense.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that Atty. Calderon regularly performed her duties necessarily prevails. Her robust defense of her actions was well-founded. She issued the Notices ofConferences pursuant to her functions as the OMB's Acting Director of the Public Assistance. 16 There was no malice or ill-will on her part when she set the conferences to clarify the issues anchored on the grievances raised by Faulve and to mediate an amicable settlement of the issues between the parties. In actual fact, the Public Assistance Bureau has an agreement with the Central Records Division to avail itself of the courier service being offered to save time and money. In any case, the service of notices and orders of the Public Assistance Bureau is no longer within the ambit of the functions of the Acting Director of the said office. Thence, Atty. Calderon should not be faulted for any perceived irregularity in the service of the notices to Faulve.
From the foregoing discourse, the instant disbarment Complaint holds no water as Faulve was unable to demonstrate the acts which could implicate Atty. Calderon and result in the striking of her name from the Rolls.
A final reflection. Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, this Court has consistently held that only clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. 17 HEITAD
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to ADOPTandAPPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in the Notice of Resolution dated 22 March 2018. The administrative Compliant for disbarment against Atty. Julita M. Calderon is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at pp. 5-6.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 13-17.
6.Id. at 14.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 56.
9.Id. at 236-242.
10.Id. at 240-242.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 235. Penned by Director for Bar Discipline Marlou B. Ubano.
13.Rico v. Madrazo, A.C. No. 7231, 1 October 2019.
14.Macaventa v. Nuyda, A.C. No. 11087, 12 October 2020.
15. See Gubatan v. Amador, 835 Phil. 825 (2018).
16. Section 7 of the Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2013 ordains: The appropriate public assistance bureau or unit may arrange a conference between the requesting party and the concerned public officer with a view to a satisfactory and expeditious resolution of the [Request for Assistance]. The Notice of Conference shall be signed by the concerned bureau director or unit head.
17. See Yagong v. Magno, 820 Phil. 291 (2017).